text,sentiment "Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.",Negative "The saddest thing about this ""tribute"" is that almost all the singers (including the otherwise incredibly talented Nick Cave) seem to have missed the whole point where Cohen's intensity lies: by delivering his lines in an almost tuneless poise, Cohen transmits the full extent of his poetry, his irony, his all-round humanity, laughter and tears in one.

To see some of these singer upstarts make convoluted suffering faces, launch their pathetic squeals in the patent effort to scream ""I'm a singer!,"" is a true pain. It's the same feeling many of you probably had listening in to some horrendous operatic versions of simple songs such as Lennon's ""Imagine."" Nothing, simply nothing gets close to the simplicity and directness of the original. If there is a form of art that doesn't need embellishments, it's Cohen's art. Embellishments cast it in the street looking like the tasteless make-up of sex for sale.

In this Cohen's tribute I found myself suffering and suffering through pitiful tributes and awful reinterpretations, all of them entirely lacking the original irony of the master and, if truth be told, several of these singers sounded as if they had been recruited at some asylum talent show. It's Cohen doing a tribute to them by letting them sing his material, really, not the other way around: they may have been friends, or his daughter's, he could have become very tender-hearted and in the mood for a gift. Too bad it didn't stay in the family.

Fortunately, but only at the very end, Cohen himself performed his majestic ""Tower of Song,"" but even that flower was spoiled by the totally incongruous background of the U2, all of them carrying the expression that bored kids have when they visit their poor grandpa at the nursing home.

A sad show, really, and sadder if you truly love Cohen as I do.",Negative "Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - ""Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)"" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.",Negative "I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence.

Warning spoilers!!

Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?

I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10",Negative "I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.

The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.

Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.

A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable",Negative "The original movie, The Odd Couple, has some wonderful comic one-liners. The entire world it seems knows the story of neurotic neat-freak Felix Ungar and funny, obnoxious, slob Oscar Madison. This paring of mismatched roommates created one of the most successful TV series of all time as well as countless, not anywhere near as good, imitations.

The Odd Couple movie has some wonderful jokes about Oscar's apartment and his sloppy habits. He says, ""Who wants food?"" One of his poker player buddies asks, ""What do ya got?"" Oscar says, ""I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches."" ""What's the brown?"" It's either very new cheese or very old meat!"" I also love the line about Oscar's refrigerator, ""It's been out of order for two weeks, I saw milk standing in there that wasn't even in a bottle!"" There is no question that Walter Matthau's Oscar Madison is a joy to watch on screen. He's almost as good as Jack Klugman's version in the TV series.

The problem with the movie is Jack Lemmon's Felix Ungar. Jack makes a very, very, honest effort at the role. The problem is that he makes Felix SO depressing and down-trodden that he becomes more annoying than comical. Tony Randall's performance in the series, brought the kind of humor, warmth, and sensitivity, to Felix's character, which Lemmon's portrayal lacks. Tony's Felix Unger obviously could be annoying some of the time. However, in the TV series, it related to specific situations where the annoyance was needed in the storyline. Jack's Felix Ungar, (note the different spelling) in the movie, seems to never be happy, fun, or interesting. The movie Felix Ungar is a roommate that drives you up the wall, all the time.

The movie still has great moments that withstand the test of time, the ""famous"" meatloaf fight is one of the greatest scenes ever! One of the other great examples of Felix's ""little notes"" on Oscar's pillow will be remembered forever. However, there are some darker sides where Oscar goes over the top, His ""crying"" near the end after bawling out Felix, and a scene involving Felix's Linguine dinner, (although lightened by a funny line.) seem more depressing than comical.

Perhaps there wasn't enough time to see the lighter side of these characters that made the series so memorable in the movie. The beginning 20 minutes are very boring. The same issue occurs with Felix's conversation with the Pidgeon Sisters. The movie's ending is predictable and too pat. There's very little care or compassion for each of them by the other. The result is that the darker side of the film leads to a lot of depression and anger, rather than comedy, unless you are watching the great scenes described above. It appears that Jack Lemmon's monotone persona of Felix brings the film down, rather than enhances or embraces the comedy between the characters.

It really took the 1970's TV series to make The Odd Couple the best that it could be. The original film is still very good. However, the TV series is much better.",Positive "This was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star.

My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around.

One of the other commentators said the movie had a ""political agenda"". That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie.",Positive "I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.",Negative "Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride!",Positive "The proverb ""Never judge a book by it's cover"", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface.

As I viewed the artwork to,""King of the Ants"" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.

""King of the Ants"" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!

Now there are a couple of interesting ""hallucination"" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!",Negative "I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade.

If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.

There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.",Negative "Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a ""movie""! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is ""no-budget"" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line ""Take my wife, please"" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in ""Billy Madison,"" the midget in ""Happy Gilmore's"" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in ""Mixed Nuts."" Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane (""Titanic"") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the ""Rocky"" movies) has a significant role.

This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so.

My score: 3 (out of 10)",Negative "My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.",Negative "A little girl's dead body is found stripped of all possible means of identification. When it is discovered that one leg is longer than the other, it is assumed to be the body of a couple's missing daughter. After this trauma, the couple separates and the mother becomes addicted to tranquilizers and leads a miserable existence. All of this changes when one day, many years later, she receives a phone call from her daughter! With the help of an ex-cop and a reporter, she sets out on a journey to determine if her daughter is indeed alive. ""Los Sin Nombre"" is a mess plot-wise, moves at an achingly slow pace, and is completely unscary. The saving grace is Emma Vilarasau, who does an outstanding job as the desperate mother. The best part of the movie is the ending, but I'm not sure it is worth enduring the rest of the film. Beware of the English subtitles on the recent R1 release--they aren't very accurate.",Negative "This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the ""gentleman"" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love ""growing"" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to ""resque"" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the ""lighter"" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a ""blockbuster"", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.",Negative "Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.

I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.",Negative "A movie of outstanding brilliance and a poignant and unusual love story, the Luzhin Defence charts the intense attraction between an eccentric genius and a woman of beauty, depth and character.

It gives John Turturro what is probably his finest role to date (thank goodness they didn't give it to Ralph Fiennes, who would have murdered it.) Similarly, Emily Watson shows the wealth of her experience (from her outstanding background on the stage). To reach the tortured chess master (Turturro) her character has to display intelligence as well as a woman's love. Watson does not portray beauty-pageant sexuality, but she brings to her parts a self-awareness that is alluring.

In a chance meeting between Natalia (Watson) and Luzhin, she casually stops him from losing a chess piece that has fallen through a hole in his clothing - a specially crafted piece that, we realize later in the film, has come to symbolize his hopes and aspirations. Later, as their love affair develops, she subtly likens dancing to chess (Luzhin has learnt to dance but never with a partner); she encourages him to lead her with ""bold, brilliant moves"" and in doing so enables him to relax sufficiently to later play at his best (and also realize himself as her lover).

This is a story of a woman who inspires a man to his greatest achievement and, in so doing finds her own deepest fulfillment, emotionally and intellectually (Or so we are led to believe - certainly, within the time frame, Natalia is something of a liberated woman rather than someone who grooms herself to be a stereotypical wife and mother).

The Italian sets are stunning. The complexity of the characters and the skill with which the dialogue unfolds them is a delight to the intelligent movie-goer, yet the film is accessible enough to make it a popular mainstream hit, and most deservedly so. Chess is merely the photogenic backdrop for developing an emotional and emotive movie, although the game is treated with enough respect to almost convince a chess-player that the characters existed. Although a tragedy of remarkable heights by a classic author, the final denouement is nevertheless surprisingly uplifting.",Positive "Ah yez, the Sci Fi Channel produces Yeti another abominable movie. I was particularly taken by the scenes immediately following the crash where, as the survivors desperately searched for matches, at least a half dozen fires burned – with no apparent reason – at various points of the wreckage. Fire seemed to be a predominate theme throughout. They searched corpses for lighters and matches, and finally finding a box built a fire every day for, apparently, 12, but no one ever gathered wood. Then when the vegan (hah) burned the bodies, what did she use for an accelerant? I mean these guys were frozen – well maybe not. Despite the apparent low temperature everything the yeti ate, bled. Maybe it's just me, but even in a totally unbelievable tale (none of the survivors had ever heard of a yeti, or an abominable snowman, until the very end), if you take care of the little things the bigger deals become more acceptable. Oh, what did the prologue (1972) have to do with the remainder of the movie? And the revolver, warm enough to hold in his hand, froze up and wouldn't fire. Gimme a break. Well, at least we have Carly Pope, another eminently lovely Canadian lass. And, with little irony, Ed Marinaro as the coach.

Well I might as well add, the rabbit they ate (despite it looking like chicken) is not a rodent, but a lagomorph. Now if it had been a squirrel (or a rat) it would have been a rodent, but it still looked like chicken. And the writers missed a real chance to have someone note ""It tastes just like...""",Negative "I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.

Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-)",Negative "It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.

Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.

It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.

If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.

I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.

There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think",Positive "There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then…. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.

Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.

The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.

This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.",Negative "I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.

You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.

The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie.",Negative "Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated ""September 11"". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless.",Negative "Although I have not seen this mini-series in over twenty years I can still remember how the balance between character,plot and tale of marvelous adventures succeeded. The use of special effects was restrained making a more poetic rather than literal telling of the story. The two versions I've seen were dubbed (English and French)but the actors appear to speak their own language not just Italian so there is a synchronization problem. It does not spoil the story telling. Among the cast Irene Pappas as Penelope is the most recognizable to North Americans. Recommended to all followers of Odysseus' ever returning.",Positive "I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!",Negative "Since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came along, there's been a lot of talk about a revival of the Hong Kong movie industry. Don't believe it. The people now making movies in HK give new meaning to the word crass. Running Out of Time 2 is a perfect example. Ekin Cheng is the name draw, here, but he spends most of the film just grinning idiotically and flipping a coin. He flips the coin over and over and again and again. Why? Who knows? Sean Lau plays a cop who chases after the coin-flipping pretty boy. But once again: who knows why? There's a pretty actress in the female lead who runs some sort of company and she has to pay a ransom or something but she mostly just looks like she would rather be at a spa or shopping centre than in front of a camera. Nothing makes any sense. There is no action. There is no sex. There is no comedy. All there is is a name: Ekin Cheng. And you know what? Who cares?",Negative "Trying to compare or represent this ""swill"" as anything ""Hitchcockian"" is an out-n-out attempt to mislead Hitchcock fans to waste $7 on this movie... Weak acting Weak story Weak script.

No real suspense, no thrills. You wait all through the weakness of this movie for the big payoff or even any payoff...You're left thinking, what the heck was that all about.

And please, enough with the movement to make ""alternative lifestyles"" HIP and politically correct!!...I can't recommend this to anyone...Did I mention how weak the acting is? Williams did a better job as Peter Pan and ""Mork"". But those were MUCH more innocent times...........",Negative "This program is a lot of fun and the title song is so catchy I can't get it out of my head. I find as I get older I am drawn to the wrinklies who get things done, and these four are excellent in their endeavors. Some of what they do is outrageous but brilliant considering that now days with our PC world we'd never be able to do it in real life. I always learn something from the shows. But if you like mystery, drama, comedy, and a little forensic work you'll love this show. It reminds me of Quincy, ME in one way and Barney Miller in another the way they work and inter-react with each other. They screw up a lot but they get the job done, and that's what counts.",Positive "The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better..",Negative "I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as ""Troll 2"", ""Ator the Invincible"", and ""Quest for the Mighty Sword"", so I was compelled to watch.

As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking ""Okay someone better get killed soon"",or ""Someone better mutate"". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask ""Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?"". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.

I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.

The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's ""Quest for the Mighty Sword"", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!",Negative "SEX WISH was actually released (minus ten minutes of more, ahem, 'extreme' footage) here in the UK back in the early days of the video boom, and caused a tabloid storm in a teacup when it allegedly inspired a copycat murder case. Strangely enough, the papers brushed this ultra-disturbing flick under the carpet in their headlong rush to get the comparatively innocuous likes of FROZEN SCREAM and NIGHT OF THE DEMON canned, and the film has been all but forgotten as a result. I jumped at the chance to watch it on a DVD-RW and spent most of the film's duration with my jaw on the floor. It's not so much politically incorrect as utterly demented, a triple-X take on Michael Winner's DEATH WISH (did the title kind of give the game away as far as inspiration was concerned?) with hardcore sex and some truly nasty violence thrown into an already bubbling brew of seventies sleaze. If you don't consider yourself to be squeamish, this may force you to think again. By the time SEX WISH is over, you'll want to scrub your eyeballs clean with disinfectant and take a long hot shower to purge yourself. If any film truly deserves the ""it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie"" tag-line, it's this one.

Highlights (or lowlights) - a rapist using a vibrator on a victim as he masturbates over her, Harry Reems's scene-stealing moustache, the helpless young black couple who are forced to screw in front the sword cane killer (they'd have won Oscars for their entirely credible performances if the Academy had gone mad) before the man is castrated for his troubles, and some jarringly slick direction that threatens to lift the proceedings above their obvious grind-house origins. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you thought the world was a more innocent place thirty years ago, SEX WISH will prove you very, very wrong.",Negative "Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.

0/10.",Negative "Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki.",Positive "I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.

This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.

Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.

I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.",Negative "This is definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL!",Negative "In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some ""laugh out loud"" moments.

But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer:

1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.

2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.

(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.)

3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said ""oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!"" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home.",Negative Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note.,Positive "I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a ""Midnite Movie"" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).

The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).

Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...",Positive "This is one of the most guilty pleasure movies ever!

I am embarrassed to say that my favorite character is TISH, but still enjoy watching her make her space outfit ""like super cool"" with a ""like totally bitchin"" belt and stick on rhinestones on her face.

But anyways, the movie is actually one of the few ""family"" movies that holds your interest. I know that the begining drags, particuarly if you know what is going to happen, but the second half is probably one of the most nerve wracking segments in a family film.

I wouldn't stand up in front of millions of people and proclaim to love this movie, in fact renting it is pretty embarrassing itself, but I'll admit it here with the internet to hide behind.

",Positive "I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.

If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.

The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?

THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.

After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...

THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...

THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.",Negative "This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.",Negative "Hey everyone...

There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.

The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The ""Clown Killer"" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).

In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.

1 star out of ten.",Negative "Note to self- just because a film is foreign, obscure, and stars Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't mean it's any good. Such is the case with 'Blue Juice,' a 1995 Brit flick about an unlikely group of surfing enthusiasts in what would seem (to a dumb American, anyway) an even more unlikely place to find surfers: Cornwall, England. You might be thinking this has the makings for an amusing, quirky little comedy. If only. The film is just a bit over ninety minutes but it seems interminable. The easiest way to describe it is as a sort of '90's British version of 'Grease' without the dancing, but even that makes it sound better than it is. No, the best way to take it is as a little slice-of-life set in a small town. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Chloe, a young woman living with a surfing instructor, JC (Sean Pertwee; you remember him). Pertwee is actually the film's star, and his character is something of a surfing legend to a small group of surfing devotees, the requisite oddball group of free spirits that inevitably inhabit films like this. In this case, it consists of a drug dealer who wants to be a journalist, a former nightclub dj who wants to be a record producer, and a fat nerdy guy who, in a needlessly extended scene, gets stoned and loses all his inhibitions which of course turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. I can't honestly say everything that goes on in 'Blue Juice' is predictable, since it's set in a place and reflects customs and manners I'm not very familiar with, but there's certainly nothing surprising or even interesting that takes place there or with the characters. The comedy, though, IS very predictable and tired. One can sense the set-ups a mile away and almost recite the dialogue (in American form, of course) before the actors do. The relationship between JC and Chloe is every bit as hackneyed. She wants him to grow up; he wants them to stay the impetuous teenagers they started out being. He's afraid of losing face with his gang; she thinks he prefers them to her. You get the idea. As I struggled to stay focused on 'Blue Juice,' toward the end I felt, as the saying goes, that this was an hour and half of my life I'd never get back.",Negative "Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.

Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).

Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.

Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.",Negative "I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.

The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.

I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.

Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?",Negative "After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.

While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.

I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.",Negative "I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.

The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel ""Descent Into Hell"" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.

What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.",Negative "The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminent director, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many a moon. It's a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period when more conventional films of this type were quite popular, and it concerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls in with a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with a brainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows, with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan's law partner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving odd speeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that the man is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and all sorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at this point the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes off the deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliant directorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give the movie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself, possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at all times incomprehensible mess.

It's hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film aside from maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle for his wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does with Welles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she is also cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beauty her most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, a quality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself is strangely unappealing and hammy at O'Hara, the (presumably) easygoing sailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easy man to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later Sean Connery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Welles does not. The most interesting performance in the movie is Glenn Anders' as Grisby, Sloan's loony, treacherous law partner. Anders works wonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while his scenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but for all this he manages to make Grisby's derangement palpable and disturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyant Method actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.

There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Welles trying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tended to make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with his world view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have an answer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. He had reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system he despised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn't exactly a nose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that it is, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers) expressing Welles' opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That he presented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself was certainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place for long. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigious film (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from which he never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speak its name in this film, which is to say Welles' personal failure in not getting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and his inability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of him turning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could not forestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himself in the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack of self-knowledge on Welles' part. He was much more of an inside player than he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of the worldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much.",Positive "It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.",Negative "After watching this film last night on Sundance, I realized that much of Nakata's style was first done in this film. Here we have many of the same elements of the RINGU series, especially the idea of the media being the source of the supernatural. Instead of the cursed videotape, we instead having a haunted studio and strange images appearing on film. In fact, the strange images appearing on film brings immediately the cursed videotape in RINGU to mind. The only thing missing was the obsession to water that runs through Nakata's later films. The final scenes are quite chilling, with a bit of a nod to Murnau, what with the door opening by itself ands the ghost entering the room, reminds me immediatly of

NOSFERATU. A chilling movie that will make think twice about going up to a catwalk.",Positive "1991 saw the release of the two best sequels of all time: TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY and BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY. Out of the two, I've always liked BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY a bit better. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY is the better made, but there's just nothing like Bill and Ted. Besides Chris Farley and David Spade in TOMMY BOY, it's hard to think of a greater comedic duo than Bill and Ted. They are one of a kind.

Seemingly influenced by National Lampoon's O.C. and Stiggs, Bill and Ted were created by Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, two incredibly talented writers who invented the duo while performing at a local theater in L.A. back in the 1980s. The two quickly began writing a screenplay about two and before long BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE was born. The film, shot in 1987 and released in 1989, became a big box office success and an instant cult classic. It wasn't long before work began on the sequel. Stephen Herek, the director of 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' wasn't keen on working on the sequel since he considered it to be too mean-spirited and unlike the first one so Peter Hewitt, making his feature film debut, was brought in to direct the sequel. There couldn't have been a better director for the job. BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is marvelously directed. It's filled with its own unique style and energy that can't be matched.

What makes 'BOGUS JOURNEY' one of the best sequels ever is that it while it is darker than the original, it is just as fun. It doesn't change the characters like most sequels do. Bill and Ted are the same lovable characters that they were in the first film. This is because it was written by the original writers. Most sequels are not written by the same writers as the first one, but since 'BOGUS JOURNEY' had the same screenwriters, it ended up being just as good as 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' if not even better. Just like the first one, 'BOGUS JOURNEY' is absolutely hilarious, well written, fun, and above all, original. It's filled with spectacular special effects and fantastic comedic performances from Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves, and William Sadler. It's an unforgettable 'journey'. 10/10",Positive "In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.

Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having ""fun"" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.

With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.

Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.

Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity.",Negative "This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson.

In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share?

Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be.",Positive "House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.",Positive "Two sorcerers battle in the fourth dimension,one(Brian Thompson as a Kabal)trying to destroy the Earth,the other(Jeffrey Combs as a Anton Mordrid)trying to save it.""Doctor Mordrid"" is an enjoyable fantasy fare which offers plenty of cheese.The plot is pretty silly and the gore is completely absent,but the film is very short and entertaining.So if you have enough time to kill give this one a look.My rating:7 out of 10.",Positive "If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on ""facts"" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of ""racist"" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.",Negative "Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too.",Positive "CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: ""CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker.""",Negative "Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!

I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?

It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a ""stunt double"". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)",Negative "MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.

Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere ""girl"" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.

Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.",Negative "Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet still qualifies as good clean, sometimes over-the-top fun. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their peak as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them. Malone won an Oscar and Stack was nominated in the supporting categories, both honors being eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat bland leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called bad actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, but that's more of a personal bias than anything else. But that doesn't take away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerable and this movie is extremely watchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say watch it. It's well worth it.",Positive "As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power.",Positive "(There isn't much in the way of spoilers, since there isn't a plot to reveal, but still, I guess I describe some of what happens so...) This is it. This is THE most nonsensical film I've ever seen. There are simply no words to describe this movie, although ""bizarre"" ""ridiculous"" and ""ego trip"" are pretty close. the opening half hour or so are really, really weird music videos, with absolutely no plot or continuity, apart from that MJ falls into some from the previous. One of the highlights of this part of the ""film"" in the section where MJ is flying a merry-go-round aeroplane through what seem to be half-arsed bond intro rejects and sections cut from Yellow Submarine (dear lord you could not make this up).

Then, with a little over an hour remaining, the ""film"" begins, with a lot of claymation (some of it really creepy) spotting our ""hero"" and chasing him looking for an autograph. Obviously, this leaves our as of yet mute (discounting songs) lead somewhat worried, and he manages to temporarily lose them. Fortunate for him, because it means he can witness a falling star and, and again, I'm not making this up, turn into a claymation rabbit. He uses this cunning disguise to try and sneak past them, but, for reasons I can't recall right now, they see through it (oh no!) and the creepy chase begins again. Cue another song (big shock there).

Shortly after the end of the chase, MJ somehow brings the rabbit to life, until he is busted by a policeman (in the middle of the desert) because it is, apparently, illegal to dance there.

The rest of the film is equally as strange, highlights including MJ cleaning up a bar to the tune of Smooth Criminal, including shooting a man with his finger, not only killing the guy, but burning his shadow into the wall, a la nuclear fission weapons. Another good moment is when MJ, seeing, Mr Big (Joe ""what the hell happened to his career at this point?"" Peschi) kidnap one of the children he was friends with, magically creates a tommy gun, and in another moment of violence that pepper this film seemingly at random, opens fire at everything that moves. A final moment I shall mention is when MJ, surrounded by Mr Big and his private army. Seriously, this guy has dozens of people working for him, and they're decked out more like commando units rather than mobsters, which I guess they are. How does he get out? Why, he turns into a robot, complete with weapons and shield. This is the third of four transformations he makes, almost always when backed into a corner and/or on the run.

This film is quite, quite surreal, with little in the way of plot, and virtually no continuity.",Positive "Pushing Daisies is just a lovely fairy tale, with shades of ""Amelie""'s aesthetic and romance. It's got a beautiful palette, its shots well thought out and detailed, its names and dialogue whimsical and too cutesy to be real, its imagination great, and its romance deep.

Watch the blue in the sky pop out at you, as blue can't be found in the rest of the sets or shots (with few exceptions).

Watch a weirdly natural and totally satisfying song break out of a scene.

Its score is gorgeous, its cast is supremely likable, there's great music, and the two leading romantic stars can't touch each other or she'll die. How much more sexual tension do you need? (Actually, I had wished they found a way around this one, but c'est la vie).

It is simply a show that it is a pleasure to spend an hour with, and I recommend it highly. There hasn't been other television quite like it, and I would like to see more. It got me through a flu one crappy week, as it makes for good company.

Bring it back!",Positive "As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the ""I can do that"" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.",Positive "The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.

Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book ""Star Trek Memories,"" this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in ""Plato's Stepchildren,"" play music with Hippies in ""the Way to Eden"" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story.

Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best ""unusual and high quality shows"" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, ""All Our Yesterdays"" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.'",Positive "i really liked the first 2 seasons. because a lot of good characters disappeared later on. like most shows are kinda slow at first then get better in later seasons, but this is the absolute reverse. jenny from the 1st season and Valarie from the 2nd season were Sabrina's friends, i really didn't care for the others, jenny and Valarie were her coolest friends. i think for some reason, the producers wanted us to not like her college friends for some reason, they were so cruel to Sabrina. but my favorite episode from season 1 is cat showdown and my favorite episode from season 2 is witch trash, that is the funniest episode. i also thought it was funny how Libby was popular but she was always jealous of Sabrina, and never seemed to have a real boyfriend but was always wanting to be with Harvey. i just wished they could have made more better ones. i also liked how the first 2 seasons, during the opening credits Sabrina would say a few words while wearing a costume, like in the pilot episode where she's in the witch costume, i liked how she said ""this is so not me"" and later on she kept trying to change herself to something else is what i think, but this is a really cool show. it is kinda like the andy griffith show in a way because it good at first but once it turned color and barney fife left, it was longer good. but i still like to watch it, but the only reason i watch later seasons is because of sabrina. what i meant about the opening sequence is: the opening titles of seasons 1-3 shows Sabrina in front of a mirror posing with several different costumes and outfits as the cast members' names quickly flash on the bottom of the screen. At the end, Sabrina would say some sort of pun that related to the outfit she is wearing, then disappear. the opening sequence of season four includes the characters in bubbles. the opening credits of seasons 5-7 features Sabrina at various locations around Boston",Positive "To the small minority seen here praising this film GET SERIOUS. I know it's down to peoples personal opinion at the end of the day, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells can surely see that this is total rubbish. So bad it does not deserve to be part of this franchise. I can only assume those saying how great this is are friends with somebody involved in the film and are trying to give their career a push. Poor in every way, don't con people by saying otherwise. Storyline is a weak rehash of the previous entries, script is likewise. Attempts to hide the lack of originality by using a girl instead (WOW!) don't disguise the film-makers lack of ideas,and there is sadly a complete lack of any scares. Absolutely no redeeming qualities, utter utter turd. I've awarded this pair of chancers one mark simply for having had the nous to get someone to fund this piece of crap. They must have put more effort into that than they did into actually making the film. Shame.",Negative "I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.",Negative "Everyone has already commented on the cinematography (good to great), the personalities (larger than life), the structure (chronological, with many references to surf culture through time). What is missed is a bigger question of sociological importance: chucking mainstream American culture for something more fulfilling and rewarding.

I was a surfer in the 1970s. We used to watch 16mm films at the local high schools in SoCal. I remember the great feeling of surfing all day until my skin radiated heat, putting on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and going to watch the latest surf film at night. Often, the narrator was the filmmaker himself, reading a script off sheets of paper. Sometimes, a surf band or proto-punk band would add music. I was never happier. Except for the hooting and hollering, seeing 'Riding Giants' took me back in time.

IT also reinforced a feeling that living life on the edge, not worrying about the money and the climbing the social and corporate ladder, not keeping up with the Joneses, pushing yourself physically and mentally for a fleeting moment of joy and jubilation - may be the answer to the question, ""what is the purpose of life?"" At least for those like Greg Noll, Laird Hamilton and the like, they seem to have found something that few of us are bold enough or honest with ourselves enough to pursue: to live life solely on our own terms. Maybe society would fall apart if we all did exactly what we wanted in life, but it is wonderful to see people who actually are living out their dreams.

It was this message that really impressed me.",Positive "I was searching through Hollywood video last night with a friend trying to find a good-looking horror movie to watch over the New Year's weekend. As I was looking through the shelves, ""Severed"" spotted my eye, and I grabbed it off the shelf and it looked like it might be a decent B-grade horror movie. The cover looked fairly good. The plot sounded semi-interesting. So I rented it. What a mistake. Don't be fooled by the cover, which actually looks decent. I'm thinking that more money was spent on the cover artwork than the movie itself. The film follows two police detectives who are tracking down a voodoo-inspired, ritualistic serial killer called ""The Head Hunter"", who is decapitating victims left and right in some unnamed city (probably Los Angeles), and they become drawn into his world of ritualized murder.

Story sound somewhat good? Well, it is, and this movie could've been halfway decent. But good God, it was bad! Almost everything about it was laughable. The opening scene features some redheaded actress in a car trying to talk on this huge, outdated cell phone, and for whatever reason, she goes outside and talks to some guy. Then, a shadow comes up behind them, hacks off his head, and the girl drops to the ground and starts crawling (for absolutely no reason) while trying to dial 911. Sound ridiculous? Yep, you bet it is. The entire movie looks like it was filmed on a VHS-quality camera, and I'm assuming it was. The acting was mostly awful, and the special effects were far from believable. And the scenes with the policemen on the phone were awful - the voice on the other line was echoing and it sounded like it was being recorded in someone's bathroom. Everything about this movie was simply amateurish and tedious, and it didn't hold my interest for very long, and I often found myself bored and tired, mostly because of the bad acting and the horrible cinematography. The pacing was bad. Everything was just bad.

Overall, ""Severed"" is a failed attempt at what could have been a decent B-movie. The plot was good and I think if this film had been handled better and had a higher budget, it could've been alright. But this movie fell flat on it's face. If you're expecting something semi-decent, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only recommended if you can tolerate D-grade horror flicks. Otherwise, you'll probably want to stay away from this straight-to-video garbage. It had a little potential, but it was beyond a mess. 1/10.",Negative "As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.

I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank",Positive "A truly disturbed, cannibalistic psychopath, John(Gary Kent, under the pseudonym Michael Brody) who lives in a cave, stalks campers who make the unfortunate mistake of backpacking in his wilderness. Steve(Dean Russell)and his buddy Charlie(John Batis)get into a playful argument with their wives, Sharon(Tomi Barrett, the late real-life wife of Gary Kent))& Teddi(Ann Wilkinson)over surviving in the woods camping by themselves. To prove a point, the gals decide to head for the wilderness out of Los Angeles for a camping trip disturbing their partners to the point that they soon follow afterward. Falling prey to John, Teddi is soon killed as Sharon runs for her life as the men arrive late to the wilderness due to their truck's overheating. Afraid, tired, and paranoid, Sharon receives some very unusual assistance..John's ghost children! That's right, John's children remain in the wilderness, ghostly apparitions which spy on those who exist in the woods, taking a special liking to Sharon, helping guide her to safety and her friends. Meanwhile, Steve and Charlie soon find shelter from a down pour and the darkness of night in the very cave where John lives. Cooking over a burning fire, the meat simmering is actually from Charlie's wife, Teddi! Unknowingly Charlie eats from the meat when offered by John who finds the outsiders inside his dwelling place! Anyway, soon, worried about their wives, Steve and Charlie set out to find them as morning breaks. Meanwhile, John goes a hunting, with Charlie, Steve, and Sharon in a fight for survival. When Steve suffers a compound fracture stumbling between two massive rocks over a flowing river, he will be handicapped only increasing such an already nightmare scenario, with Sharon following her ghostly young friends to potential safety..they even, at one point, plead with their father to not kill her. Charlie, unfortunately, doesn't have such friends.

Director Donald Jones(..who also wrote it and went broke funding the film)smartly shoots the film in such a breathtaking, gorgeous location in the Sequoia National Park, in California, where those gargantuan trees tower to great heights, and I basically watch backwoods slashers for this very purpose. For some strange reason, I didn't particularly find Jones' direction of the setting very atmospheric..the dread was missing, although there are some rather disturbing attacks by John using his knife(..shot in a clever way, Jones' camera suggests more than what is actually on screen, yet, somehow, still achieves that gasp at what John is doing to victims). Within such a picturesque landscape, to see innocents preyed upon by a maniac, that kind of increases the terror. City folk attempting to spend a nice few days in a different place, to smell the clean, fresh air, enjoy the sights of a lovely view, only to find themselves stalked by a creepy predator with a very intimidating knife. Providing the back-story to why John is the monster he is, Jones allows us to witness his memory flashback in discovering his wife's adultery and reacting accordingly(..she is also a ghost in the wilderness looking for her children, wishing to punish them for ""being naughty"")killing both her and the lover in bed(..a refrigerator repairman). The children, sad and depressed committed suicide and now ""haunt"" the wilderness, still interacting with their pa or whoever they so choose. I realize such a novelty as ghost children in a backwoods slasher is unique and appreciated by some, but I found the idea rather hokey and too silly to take serious. They do help our heroine escape a few potentially dangerous situations, but it was awfully hard for me to keep from giggling uncontrollably. The music I found hideously 80's and the performances aren't mind-blowing. I mean I could react to the situation they were in, because it is indeed quite terrifying to find yourselves in an unfamiliar and hostile territory being hunted by someone who knows the area so well. I think the film is similar in many ways to DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS..ALONE!, except that THE FOREST has the aforementioned ghost children(..their voices echo when talking to Sharon, their father, or each other). Gary Kent looks like a filthy George Lucas, with tattered clothes, and humanity lost. As I mentioned above, the violence isn't as grisly as what is suggested because director Jones is able to effectively cut away from a great deal of knife penetration, yet the way he stages the set pieces leave you rather unsettled(..such as Teddi's murder, the violence mostly silhouetted on the surface of a nearby huge stone formation, her pleas for John to stop and, once stabbed several times, attempts to crawl away from her predator only to be finished off;a hanging corpse John is skinning). I've seen better and worse of this type of slasher film, it's rather mediocre, at best, with some effectively shot scenery. I don't really think it's particularly memorable, for the exception of the ghost children.",Negative "This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as ""that paper hanger"". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a ""starving artist"", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!",Positive "At your video store, you might find this gem.

The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.

Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.

The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!!

Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.

And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.

If you havent seen it, DO!",Positive "** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...

Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.

3/10",Negative "I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...

Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.

This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, ""What?"". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.",Negative "Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they ""accidentally"" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.

Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.

I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.",Negative My brother brought this movie home from the rental store and I remember expecting it to be such a bore. I think the title especially put me off. I can't ever remember starting a movie with such low expectations and being so completely won over. I watched the movie twice before I let my brother take it back to the store. It is very infrequent that a movie speaks to me the way this one did. I was completely caught up in Ruby's situation as she tries to make her way through her life. The bad thing about this movie is that it seems to end so quickly. I could have kept watching for hours. Another downside is that I have been unsatisfied with everything Ashley Judd has done since. She is so perfect in this movie. This film is easily in my top ten favorites of all time.,Positive "We have high expectations with this one . . . because its Zombi 3 the official sequel to Zombi 2 and directed by Lucio Fulci . . . however . . . its co-directed by Bruno Mattei (from Night of the Zombies) and not written by Dardino Sachetti but by Claudio Fagrasso (Night of the Zombies) and its shot in the Phillimines like Night of the Zombies and resembles Night of the Zombies (Hell of the Living Dead) a lot. as a result its more like a companion to Hell of the Living Dead than Zombi 2. Fabrazio DeAngelis who produced Zombi 2 and its editor Tomassi (?) and efx gianetto De Rossi gave Zombi 2 its magic . . . Zombi 3 is not magical . . . its like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter. But over the years, I've grown to accept Zombi 3. I could swear I saw a version where a soldier was bitten on the arm and went to the hotel room . . . there was a senseless Fulci-cut and the Mattei/Fulci-cut is the one on DVD.",Positive "I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a ""bubble"" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.",Negative "Dick Tracy is easily the best comic book based movie made to date. The movie has the same feel as the comic book, staying true to the color scheme. The Batman series has climbed, fallen, climbed and fallen again. Dick Tracy has true staying power as something that both adults and children can enjoy. The good guys triumph over evil, without blood and gore to get the point across. Al Pacino does a wonderful job of his own adaptation of Big Boy Caprice and Madonna is memorable as Breathless. But the best job by far is Warren Beatty who just epitomizes Dick Tracy just as he did with Clyde Barrows. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD on April 2, 2002, my tape is wearing thin.",Positive "I've seen this film several times in a variety of short-film festivals and it always causes me the impression that i have seen a movie trailer!

For a school-film is very well produced and directed, but the story... well it needed something else to be a bigger and interesting film. The character named Tim Watcher needed some in-dept approach. This is something that lacks in some Portuguese short films - the script is always superficial.

But still... i liked this movie...

Parabens! (congratulations!)",Negative "As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like ""Raising Victor"" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.",Negative "The word 'classic' is thrown around too loosely nowadays, but this movie well deserves the appelation. The combination of Neil Simon, Walter Matthau (possibly the world's best living comic actor), and the late lamented George Burns make for a comic masterpiece. It is interesting to contemplate what the movie would have been like had not death prevented Jack Benny from playing George Burns' part, as had been planned. As it is, the reunion scene in Matthau's apartment is not likely to be surpassed as a sidesplitter. Definitely one of my desert island films.

""Enter!!!!!!!!!""",Positive "Someone had a great idea: let's have Misty Mundae do her own, R-rated version of Lara Croft - firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits, but topless as well. It WAS indeed a great idea. The problem is that the people who had it couldn't come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. Therefore, we get a ""film"" that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow-motion), and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. The appeal of Misty Mundae is still evident: she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl-next-door beauty. However her two female co-stars here, with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene, are nowhere near her league. If ""Mummy Raider"" was presented as a Youtube video, I'd rate it higher, but as a ""film"" destined for DVD consumption it cannot get more than 1/2 a * out of 4.",Negative "It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.

Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.

The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).

(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)",Negative "The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.

If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'

I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids.

SOME SPOILERS

The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon.

Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!

Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous!

Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'

If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.

I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger!",Negative "Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie ""feel"" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.

This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.

Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.

But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.",Negative "The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.",Negative "A family (mother-Patricia Clarkson, father-Jake Weber, son-Erik Per Sullivan) go out for a family get together in some remote house in the middle of winter. They accidentally hit a deer while driving there. This angers some of the locals--especially Otis (John Speredakos) and things slowly (VERY slowly) go wrong.

I was expecting the worst when I started watching this. The bulk of the reviews for this, on this site, are extremely negative. Well...I disagree. First off it's NOT a horror film. The horror doesn't even begin until the closing 30 minutes. It plays more like a family drama with horror elements thrown in. On that level, it's pretty damn good.

First--the bad stuff: The pace is WAY too slow; Jake Weber is a horrible actor; WAY too many false dream sequence scares; the wendigo barely figures into the film and the clear view we get of the wendigo at the end is laughable.

The good stuff: Pretty good dramatic script; Clarkson is excellent as the mother; some great direction with eerie sound effects which are a little scary; a pretty explicit hot sex sequence between Clarkson and Weber (which actually is necessary for the integrity of the plot!); pretty good acting by Sullivan (only 10 at the time!) and Speredakos and a completely unexpected tragic ending.

I think many people are annoyed with this film because it's being pushed as a horror film--which it isn't. So, if you can ignore that, I think you might like it. I'm giving it a 7.",Positive "Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts.

There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters.

Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.

Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character.

If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did.

I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.",Negative "Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****",Negative "The best Treasure Island ever made. They just don't make films

like this anymore, or ever. No one makes films like this. More

than a novelty, this film is funny, frank and fascinating, yet moody,

mysterious and morose. This is one of my favorite pictures. The

director must have had some idea what it is all about, but he

certainly leaves room for your own impressions and interpretations, while leaving little left to the imagination. Why he

has not made more films like this, I have no idea. While

reminding me of some of the best noir, it is one of a kind. But this

is not for the lazy or simple.",Positive "Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of ""art"", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.

Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that ""44 Minutes"" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.

So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - ""44 Minutes"". One first thinks about ""15 Minutes"", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become ""true"" Americans?

Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.

Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though.

As the final note, comparing ""firepower"" to ""willpower"" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.

To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.",Negative "... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.

""A river runs through it"" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.

Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).

I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.

The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.

Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)

",Negative "Besides the fact that my list of favorite movie makers is: 1)Stanley Kubrick 2)God Allmighty 3)the rest... this movie actually is better than the book (and the TV miniseries though this is an easy feat, considering the director). The flawless filming stile, the acting and (Kubrick's all time number one skill) the music - make it THE masterpiece of horror. I watched the TV miniseries a few years ago and liked the story and I had my hopes about this when I got a hold of it. IT BLEW ME AWAY!!! It is far better than I ever imagined it. It starts slow (Kubrick trademark) and has a lot of downtime that builds up the suspense. The intro scene is a classic by all means and I watched it about 20 times just for the shear atmosphere it induces to the whole film. Also the film doesn't offer a lot of gore (it has just enough and it is by no means tasteless) a trend that I hate in recent day horror films. Just watch it!",Positive "The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.

I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, ""When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?""

Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch ""Monsoon Wedding"".",Negative "The plot is rocky. The acting is somewhere south of a Jr. High School play. The cinematography is not bad but it looks like it was cut with a machete. I couldn't decide of this was an intentionally hokey flick or if the people behind it actually thought they were making a good film. Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a 'lawless' modern town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the Ford Mustang right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really strange but might be improved if watching it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie cliché you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Really! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, tell 'em your DVD player died.",Negative "In this movie the year 2022 looks much like the seventies. This is amusing at first, but soon the viewer perceives how very different that decadent futuristic world is despite the appearances, how many things that we take for granted could become unavailable.

Characters often interact in a peculiar way, with no tact or manners or respect. I believe this is intentional, not bad acting. After all, who witnessed the social changes in the 60s and 70s may well assume that by 2022 an overpopulated city's inhabitants behave like that.

I didn't like most of the action scenes, apart the death of the priest: too cheap even for the seventies. The plot isn't too polished. But the great scenes and ideas - like the death of Sol, the way rioters and dead bodies are dealt with, the ""furniture"" - outweigh the shortcomings of this film.

8 out of 10.",Positive "I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of ""Alfie""?

This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and ""Beyond the Poseidon Adventure"". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like ""The Island"", and ""Blame it on Rio"".",Negative "This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.",Negative "I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called ""fallen angels"" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional ""Blair Witch"" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. ""Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny"" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.",Negative "Contrary to most other commentators, I deeply hate this series.

It starts out looking interesting, with mysterious aliens and giant robots, and I kept my hopes up until the very last episode. At the end of it, I still didn't understand what the alien attacks were all about (maybe I missed something, who knows?), and realized that I had sat through 26 episodes consisting mainly of the characters' own self-hating, selfishness and self-pitying. It actually flips between alien/robot fights and these dark, depressing blinking-on-and-off scenes where one or more characters can just say or shout ""I hate me/you/it"" 10-12 times in a row.

I can't really see either Shinji or Asuka (two of the main characters) showing growth or change. (Nor can I see any of the other characters learning or growing either, for that matter.) I wanted to kick them and tell them to get a bloody life during the first episodes, and the feeling didn't change during the last ones. Shinji truly possesses the kind of helpless hopelessness that makes people angry rather than charitable, and Asuka is such an infuriating know-it-all that I wanted to smash the TV screen every time she came into view. Oh, and more than anyone else, these two hate everything, and say it veeeeeeeery often.

I'm otherwise a big fan of animé and manga, and never before have I disliked one so much. I read that the series creator/writer wrote this while suffering from a depression, and I can believe that; it made me depressed to watch it. Is that the aim of this series? I'm honestly asking. Is it designed to make the viewer confused and annoyed? And if suffering from a depression, why just not write a book or biography about it, instead of mixing it up with aliens and mecha's? This alien war plot, as far as I could tell, lead to absolutely nowhere.

Finally, since I'm truly fascinated by how many people claim to love this patchwork of dead-end plots, I can't help but wonder how many of them actually find it good, and how many say they do because they've been told it is.",Negative "Well, this film is a difficult one really. To be straight with you, this film doesn't contain much of a riveting story, nore does it make u 'want' to know how it'll end...but I'll tell you something now...never have I been as tense and jumped up before in my life! This film sure does deliver the jumps and thrills! To be fair, I did watch it at almost midnight so I was kinda sleepy anyway, so maybe that explains why I was jumpy...or maybe it's because this film does deliver in that aspect! It's basically about a couple who lose their child in a tragic event. They decide to move away and rent a cabin looking thing in the mountains...all looks peaceful and calm until they have their first visitors (i think it's it's the sister of the main character, and she brings along her husband)...during the night, the husband hears noises...checks it out, and thats when things start to go really really wrong...they don't stay for another day and tell the couple they should leave asap as something isn't right...to cut a long story short...eventually they find out what has happened in that house in the past few years and decide it needs to be taken care of.

It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, nore does it have a huge budget, but please don't let that put you off. It's creepy, tense and very very jumpy! Just give it a try :)",Positive "While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called ""The Making of 10 Items or Less"":

Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!

Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?

Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.

Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.

Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.

Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.

Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?

Writer: Why not?

Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.

Writer: Of course.

Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.

Writer: Sure thing!

Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a ""ten items or less"" express lane?

Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!

I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did ""10 Items or Less"". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old ""don't let anything hold you back"" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with ""10 Items or Less"", the only message I got was ""Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!""",Negative "Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them.",Positive Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.

Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.

The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.

This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.

Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-),Negative "If you are viewing this show for the first time, you may start wondering if you are in an alternate reality. Colorful and imaginative characters? Entertaining dialogue? Plots that seem to have some depth to them, even creating atmospheres of suspense and drama at times? I mean, this is a syndicated children's show right? This is the same venue that has brought kids such drek as ""Pokemon"", ""Pepper Ann"", ""Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"", and ""VR Troopers"" (please note that three of the titles mentioned above are crass Japanese exports, courtesy of the Fox Network and Saban Entertainment). Don't worry, you are just sampling some of the quality fare that was available to kids during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Some examples of this period would be ""Transformers"", ""Garfield and Friends"", ""Captain Power"", and ""C.O.P.S."" (a cartoon NOT to be confused with the live action show on Fox). Besides these prime examples, Disney also returned to syndicated programs for kids, coming up with a lineup called ""The Disney Afternoon"". Aside from a dumbed-down show called ""The Gummi Bears"", early shows like ""Darkwing Duck"", ""Duck Tales"", and ""Chip 'N Dale's Rescue Rangers"" gave credence to the Disney animation teams that were also turning out theatrical classics like ""The Little Mermaid"", ""Beauty and the Beast"", ""The Rescuers Down Under"", and ""The Great Mouse Detective"". But above all these wonders shines ""TaleSpin"". The premiere of ""Plunder and Lightning"" was a two-hour thrill ride, and won an Emmy. Much to my delight, the rest of the episodes were up to par on the promise of the premiere.

While I enjoy the plots and dialogue, I guess for me the greatest attraction are the characters. There's Rebecca Cunningham, an independent female, but still fallible; Kit Cloudkicker, full of pre-teen angst and optimism; Louie, with his loyalty and support; Frank Wildcat, the most entertaining engineer since Scotty on the original ""Star Trek""; Molly Cunningham, cute and witty, but with some depth that most child characters don't have, and of course in the middle of it all, there's Baloo, whom I would describe as a slobby version of James Bond. This is because whenever there's trouble, Baloo saves the day with the assistance of his sleeker-than-most, fastest-of-all Sea Duck (Read: James Bond's Aston Martin). Of course every great show has to have great villains, and TaleSpin doesn't disappoint here either. From the megalomania of businesstiger Shere Kahn, to the vain and always failing air pirate Don Karnage, to the hilarious and inept Soviet-satirized Thembrians. The animation is good, the music appropriate, and the episodes are (for me) the finest that children's programming has ever had to offer. Great fun for the WHOLE family!",Positive "A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.",Negative "Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film.

The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.",Negative "I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!",Negative "To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.

IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.

I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.

How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love ""The Godfather"" but ""9/11"" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.

jf",Positive "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** From its very opening credits this fantastic movie sets the record straight: it's an instant classic. It doesn't take long to realize that this movie is big, bigger than `Kindergarten Cop' or `Police Academy 7.' The sheer greatness of it left me speechless as I walked out of the movie theater and proceeded right back to the ticket counter to purchase myself another dozen of tickets.

This is a movie that simply requires multiple viewings. The first watching will surely leave you with that strange `Huh?' feeling, but don't feel embarrassed - it happens to the best of us. The story is so diabolically clever that one has to wonder about the mortality of its authors. What seems to be a simple story of an idiot infiltrating the FBI, turns out to be an allegorical story that works on several levels and teaches us all about the really important things in life. The complexity of the plot structure will baffle you on your first viewing, but don't give up! Not until my sixth or seventh viewing did I only begin to unravel some of the hidden mysteries of `Corky Romano.' And watch out for the unexpected twist at the end, otherwise you might be caught completely off guard when it is revealed that FBI agent Brick Davis is FBI's most-wanted criminal, Corky is not a real FBI agent, Pops Romano is innocent, Peter Romano admits he's illiterate and Paulie Romano comes out of the closet as a homosexual. Surprised the hell out of me, I can tell you that much.

Chris Kattan's comedic talents are unmatched as he leads his character Corky Romano through a maze of totally unpredictable situations. Reminiscent of John Reynolds' performance in `Manos, the Hands of Fate,' Kattan takes on innumerable multiple personalities and tackles all scenes with perfect comedic timing. However, Kattan is not just about comedy. He is a master of drama as well, as he controls the audience's feelings with the slightest moves of his face. His facial expressions reflect life itself, in a way. For example, in the scene in which he farts into his brothers' faces, you can see the expression of social injustice and alienation clearly reflected on his anguished face. At a moment like that, it's hard to find a dry eye in the house.

Screenwriters David Garret and Jason Ward are the real heroes of `Corky Romano.' With a story of such proportions, it's easy to understand why two experienced writers had to be employed to complete this ambitious project. Their skillful storytelling and unorthodox structuring makes `Pulp Fiction' look like a mediocre Saturday Night Live skit. Garret and Ward's story is so compelling and alluring that it grips you by your hair, swallows you entirely, shakes you around and spits you right out. At the end of the out-of-this-world experience known as `Corky Romano' you find yourself a different person with different worldviews and different ideas, and with only one question on your mind:

Why, God? Why?!?",Negative "This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too.",Positive "Anyone who doesn't like this film is one who is afraid to explore his or her own demons. This film does make the viewer a little uncomfortable at times, but that is its intention. It asks you to look at your own life and confront the obstacles head on like Lou eventually does. It asks you to overcome the fear of perception and become who you are meant to be. Bret Carr holds up a mirror unlike any filmmaker has. The intention and the message is clear and profound. People's apprehension about this film stems only from their own insecurities. An open-minded viewer takes this inspirational message and runs with it. Sometimes a life- changing realization DOES come in a flash -- a light bulb going on. This story is real and changes the lives if its viewers in a real way.",Positive "I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but ""hinglish"" is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much.

*sigh*

All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)

Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - ""Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health"" ?

Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - ""Mera Dil Kho Gaya"" becomes - ""My heart is in a void"" , ""Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya"" turns into ""Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond"" ..priceless.

In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!

*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.",Negative "This film is awful. The CGI is the very cheap gray blob CGI. The crocodile looks like a large gray smudge. The worst is that no effort at all is given to making it walk or look like it is alive. It is mostly a photo-shopped CGI that is placed into scenes and you almost expect to see the hand that is moving the CGI smudge across the screen. This is one of the worst examples of CGI effects that I have ever witnessed, and I have seen lots of the very bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.

Aside from the terrible lack of special effects, the cast is composed of the typical low-cost actors who probably work as Waiters/Waitresses at local diners while they wait for their Big Breaks. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene in this movie is when one of the bad guys is attempting to sexually assault Kate and the giant crocodile jumps straight up out of the water to the second floor of the Villains Headquarters and through the balcony and pulls the bad guy off Kate and instead of crashing straight down through the building (and crushing Kate) the Croc just flies backwards at the same angle into the water. No laws of Physics can apply to this movie or the special effects. At least there is honor among crocodiles.",Negative "I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.

There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.

Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.",Negative "I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.

Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.

Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.

Reminded me of drama at school...",Negative "this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.

lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh

whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.

The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.

this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7

Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.",Negative "I grew up watching Full House as a child. I stopped watching it for years, but about two weeks ago I started back watching it again. Now my kids watch the show and they love to watch it as well. My kids can't believe that DJ , on the show, and I are the same age.

I really love the show, because it is a show you can watch with your family. It has good teachings your kids can learn from. Also there isn't any drugs and violence on it. Also when the kids, on the show, have a problem they can always open up to their family for help. That's the message kids should be getting from TV now a days, turn to your family for help, not to drugs. Kids should be watching more shows like Full House instead of half the mess on TV now a days.

I also love the show because it makes you laugh and it is down to earth. It talks about real life problems and family matters. There is always a lesson you can learn from the show.

I vote the show a 10.",Positive "The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.",Negative "David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.",Positive "This film reminds me a lot of the anti-drug films of the 50's and 60's due to the fact that it was made by people that have obviously never experienced the social evil that they are warning us about. Tom Hanks and his buddies are ""role playing"", but there are no dice, lots of candles, and then you are just swept away in a bad montage showing Hanks falling for the lady in the group. quite funny but misguided. I wonder how many poor kids had their D&D stuff destroyed, and were told that the use of their imagination was the road to destruction. As a film it's basically an after school special, bad acting (although Hanks does show some of his talent) and relationship talks, and no one seems to be having any fun. It seems these films have a psychological focus on adolescents starting on the road to adultism, which is more serious, apparently, and requires you to buckle down and do the things everyone else does. Despite my vote of 2, this is worth watching due to its unique genre, scare films, which I personally find quite funny.",Negative "IVAN (Marco Ricca) and GILBERTO (Alexandre Borges) are partners in a company together with ESTEVÃO (George Freire), but the first ones contract a professional killer, ANISIO, to murder ESTEVÃO (the plot, at least at the beginning, doesn't explain very well why). The guy does it and after receiving his money he starts blackmailing the two partners, appearing in their company and saying he wants a job there (as supervisor or something…). At the same time he meets MARINA (Mariana Ximenes), daughter of ESTEVÃO, and starts dating with her!

In a story like this, where crime, corruption, betrayal and blackmail go hand in hand, no one is innocent or can be victimized, exception made to MARINA, which is the only person who doesn't know what's going on and didn't betray anyone…

This film portrays with sarcasm the sad and cruel reality which exists in big metropolis like São Paulo, where crime is every day's presence. We can feel irony but also veracity in characters like ANISIO (brilliantly played by Paulo Miklos), which does blackmail to the guys who paid him without any scruples, and even flirts with the daughter of the guy he killed! He really must be a monster to do something like that, but of course I know there're people like him out there, in Brazil or any other place…

It's a very good movie, cruel but truthful, about a sad reality… The acting is great and the soundtrack too.",Positive "Damp telling of the American Revolution.

When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.

After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of ""poor old Georgie Washington"" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.

Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.

Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.",Negative "In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.

The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.

All together the movie was pretty boring.

I give it a 3/10.

I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.",Negative "As the maker of ""This Darkness,"" I admit we neglected 3 very important acknowledgments in our end credits. The omissions were over-sights that could not be corrected once committed, nor did the parties involved --- who saw the movie --- mention it at the time. On behalf of the excellent cast and crew of the film, I extend them an apology. Obviously, some criticisms posted here are harsh in light of their credit being accidentally. Our production values were negligible and our ""special effects"" were quite special indeed, but the plot is very strong and the cinematography by John McLeod is superb. We hope you, the reader, enjoy ""This Darkness"" and the efforts of those who worked their butts off for free. Thank you, Dylan O'Leary, Director.",Positive "Depardieu's most notorious film is this (1974)groundbreaker from Bertrand Blier. It features many highly sexual scenes verging on an X-rating, including one of Jeanne Moreau doing a hot 1970s version of her Jules and Jim menage a trois with the two hairy French hippies (Depardieu and Deware). There is no such thing as a sacred territory in this film; everything is fair game.

It's very odd that Americans tend to not like this film very much while many French people I've met consider it a classic. Something about it goes against what Americans have been programmed to 'like.'

Gerard and the late Patrick Deware are two bitch-slapping, hippy drifters with many sexual insecurities, going around molesting women and committing petty crimes. They're out for kicks and anti-capitalist, Euro-commie, slacker 'freedom.' Blier satirizes the hell out of these two guys while at the same time making bourgeois society itself look ultimately much more ridiculous. Best of all though, is the way the wonderful Stephane Grappelli score conveys the restless soul of the drifters, the deeper subconscious awareness or 'higher ideal' that motivates all the follies they engage in.",Positive "An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________",Positive This in my opinion is one of the best action movies of the 1970s. It not only features a great cast but is also loaded with wild shootouts and explosions that are still impressive today. The story is about a Vietnam vet (Kris Kristofferson) being recruited by his brother (Jan-Michael Vincent) to help clean up the criminal element in a small town and what happens when Kris starts taking advantage of his position and becomes as bad as the criminals he was hired to get rid of. It's great seeing Kris play against type. Bernadette Peeters and Victoria Principal both offer great support as the respective ladies of the two male stars. Jan-Michael shows real movie star persona in this film. I don't think Vigilante Force is on video but it occasionally shows up on TV. It's a great flick for guys who like movies.,Positive "I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this ""War of the Worlds"", lets name this ""War of the Walking Long Distances"". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?

Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.

So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or money

I know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!!

I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10.",Negative "While not as famous as some of their other collaborations (such as THE BLACK CAT and THE BODY SNATCHER), this is a dandy little horror film even though the casting decisions were a bit odd. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a weird scientist who lives in the Carpathian mountains--near where the Dracula character's home town. Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Benet--whose nationality was never discussed though the name certainly sounds French. I really think it would have made sense to have the two switch roles, as the Carpathian role seems tailor made for Lugosi--especially with his accent. However, despite this unusual twist, the two still did excellent jobs. Karloff's was definitely the lead role, but Lugosi acquitted himself well as a relatively normal person--something he didn't play very often in films!! It seems that Dr. Rukh is a bit of a pariah, as other scientists (especially Benet) think his theories are bizarre and nonsensical. However, over the course of the film, Rukh turns out to be right and Benet is especially generous in his new praise for Rukh. But, unfortunately, the wonderful new element that Rukh discovered has the nasty side effect of turning him into a crazy killing machine (don't you hate it when that happens?). While this could have just been a simple nice scientist turned mad story, the plot was well constructed, the characters nicely developed and the mad Rukh was NOT a one-dimensional killer, but complex and interesting.

This film is bound to be enjoyed by anyone except for people who hate old horror films. You can really tell that Universal Pictures pulled out all the stops and made a bigger-budget film instead of the cheap quickies both Lugosi and Karloff unfortunately gravitated in later years. Good stuff.",Positive "A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.

That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance.

I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their ""selective memories"" and ""selective vision"". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.

The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War.",Negative Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.

Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!

This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.

It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.

Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull!

The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!,Negative "In all honesty, this series is as much a classic (as television goes) as the original poem is to the world's literature. Far from being crassly exploitative, it is a beautiful and respectful rendering of one of the western culture's defining texts.

I was moved by the plight of Odysseus and his followers; touched by the drama of the fall of Troy (which was felt but not seen); intrigued by the way the gods played with the fate of mortals. (It should be mentioned that the gods appearing here are not ridiculous CGI creatures flitting around on their ankle wings, or poorly-cast fashion models in bikinis. As in Homer's work, they act through mortal agents or, rarely, are represented by classical statuary).

It's a pity it's not available in DVD, especially given the vastly inferior and cheesy adaptations of the Odyssey that one can find in video stores.",Positive "This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the ""Seinfeld"" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film ""Burn"" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.",Negative "Welcome to Collinwood is a lot of things, but it is none of the following:

A George Clooney star vehicle Unfunny Un-Original

And yes i know, the basis for the movie is another movie. But as far as Hollywood goes, this may rank with their most authentic outputs this decade - and for me, it does.

The movie is from start to finish, an absolute gas. Here's why.

There isn't a bad performance in the film. The funny parts are funny. The edgy parts are edgy. The script contains, not a dull moment of dialogue The cinematography is fresh and yes beautiful. And it doesn't conform to the Hollywood norm (you'll see what i mean, when you see the film)

When i was a kid, i remember seeing advertisements for the film. This film went under the radar after not grossing much at the box office, and isn't even a cult classic. The reason why Transformers 2, is seen as acceptable by average movie goers, is because they are used to seeing Transformers 2. If film's as original and funny as this were pumped out as often as multi-million pieces of s**t, the cinematic experience would be a much fresher place -

When 'they' say they don't make em like they used to, 'they' didn't see Welcome to Collinwood.

A fun, mini-masterpiece of caper comedy, that refuses to compromise. One of my favourites.",Positive "I wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest ""kids'"" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala ""Jurassic Bark"", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.

Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me.",Positive "Undoubtedly the best heavy metal horror item made in the manically headbangin' 80's, which admittedly doesn't sound like much considering how utterly abysmal many other entries in this odd little fright film sub-genre like ""Hard Rock Zombies,"" ""Blood Tracks,"" ""Terror on Tour,"" and the especially ungodly Jon-Mikl Thor-starring stinker ""Rock'n'Roll Nightmare"" tended to be. That aside, this one still deserves props for downplaying the excessive splatter and needlessly flashy special f/x razzle-dazzle in favor of focusing on adolescent high school characters who are depicted with greater acuity and plausibility than the norm for a mid-80's teen-targeted scarefest. Moreover, the film's pointed sardonic parodying of both ridiculously overblown 80's heavy metal stupidity and the nauseating self-righteousness of the uptight killjoy conservative stiffs who claimed it was the devil's music are very clever and on the money funny (famed Greed Decade heavy metal god Ozzy Osbourne has a hilarious bit as a smarmy anti-metal TV evangelist!).

Marc Price (the hopelessly dweeby Skippy on ""Family Ties"") gives a surprisingly strong and winning performance as Eddie ""Ragman"" Weinbauer, a geeky, socially awkward and severely persecuted heavy metal aficionado who's constantly picked on by the stuck-up jerk preppie bullies who make up the majority of the student body at Lakeridge High School (the cruelty and mean-spiritedness of the high school kids is nailed with painfully credible accuracy). Eddie's life takes a turn for the worse when his rock star idol Sammi Curr (an impressively whacked-out portrayal by Tony Fields) perishes in a hotel fire. Hip local disc jockey Nuke (KISS front-man Gene Simmons in a cool cameo) hooks Eddie up with Sammi's final, unreleased album, which when played backwards resurrects Curr's malevolent spirit back from the dead. Sammi encourages Eddie to sic him on all the vile scumbags who make poor Eddie's life the proverbial living hell, only to have meek Eddie prove to be a most reluctant would-be accomplice. It's up to Eddie, assisted by token nice girl Leslie Graham (likeably essayed by the lovely Lisa Orgolini), to stop Sammi before things get too out of hand.

Ably directed with commendable thoughtfulness and sensitivity by character actor Charles Martin Smith (who also briefly appears as a nerdy school teacher), smartly written by Michael S. Murphy, Joel Soisson, and Rhet Topham, and capably acted by a uniformly up-to-snuff cast, this surefire sleeper even comes complete with a handful of nifty ""jump"" moments (an outrageous attack in the back of a car by a grotesquely lecherous long-tongued mutant thingie rates as the definite highlight), a rousing ""Carrie""-style high school dance slaughter sequence, a neatly utilized Halloween setting, revenge being correctly shown as a truly ugly business, and a solid central message that you shouldn't make a particular over-hyped person your hero strictly because of the calculated anti-establishment posturing said fellow does to qualify for that special status.",Positive "A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.

Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an ""extreme"" torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.

The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.

The actress who plays the victim of the ""experiment"" is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.

If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment.",Positive "The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.

We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.",Negative "The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by ""Django"" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!",Negative "Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.",Negative "Hey now, I can't claim to have seen all of the films of Jesse (Jesus) Franco, and there sure seem to be a lot of them, but this is one of the better (and weirder) of the lot that I have seen. I'd say most likely he was in his prime back in the late sixties/early seventies and anything lately has been a bit TOO strange for me, and it takes a lot for me to declare that. Anyway, this is like one big bad dream where parts of it seem to come true at various points. This woman is an actress or something, performs in some theater in Berlin where acts of ""fake"" torture are performed for an appreciative audience (?!) and she seems to have this problem with dreaming. The catch to what's real and what's not in this movie is apparently the real stuff is in sharp focus and the dream stuff isn't. She seems to exist in a state of deja vu. I won't say this makes a whole lot of sense but it is pretty wild and weird and entertaining. Shots of Berlin make it seem like a lonely and creepy place, so that adds to the atmosphere. The ending is extremely abrupt though, the film just ends and the tape went black, I guess no need to let you know it was over at that point. My copy was from the Anchor Bay Euro-Trash collection, and I say, give me more Euro-Trash, I can't get enough of that crap. But it's GOOD crap.",Positive "This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing).",Positive "Fire And Ice is an animated film set in a fantasy world. The film is about a village that is destroyed by a giant glacier which is the home of the evil ice lord named Nekron. The only survivor of the village is a young man named Larn who sets out to avenge those who were killed by the glacier. The ice glacier moves through the land of fire and the princess of the land named Teegra is kidnapped by evil creatures. Larn sets out to find her and also sets out to find and kill Nekron. Fire And Ice is directed by Ralph Bakshi who is one of my favourite adult animators. He has brought us such animated masterpieces as the film version of Fritz The Cat and some films he has written himself, like the great film Heavy Traffic. I didn't like Fire And Ice nearly as much as I have Ralph Bakshi's other work, but I still found the film to be enjoyable. It had some very nice animation in parts and the story was entertaining enough. The only basic complaints I have is that I wish that there was more of a story to the film because the story it uses is very thin and there is not a lot to it. I also wish the film was a bit longer because it is under 80 minutes in running time. Still it's an entertaining action adventure films that unlike Fritz The Cat or Heavy Traffic is appropriate for kids 8 and older. I only wish that there was a more developed story and it went on a bit longer than it did.",Positive "Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of ‘Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's ‘grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played ‘Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a ‘brainless moment'! 2/10",Negative "This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say ""I'm rick james b!tch"" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear ""I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane"" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie",Negative "While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching ""Lost"", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1—the one with the polar-bear—and it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster.

""Lost"" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchingly—what drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But ""Lost"" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.

While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of ""Lost"" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) – these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot.

About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) – well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.

But assuming the writers do pull this off, ""Lost"" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.

9/10",Positive "after just having watched The Deer Hunter,which is a masterpiece,the movie Jacknife had big shoes to fill.it has same themes as The Deer Hunter,the devastating effects on a person after the Vietnam War.Robert De Niro is in this film,as in The Deer Hunter and is very good here,as is Kathy Baker.but this movie belongs to Ed Harris,who gives a powerful,emotional and impactful performance.the movie is based on a stage play,and there are one or two scenes where that felt obvious to me.by that i just mean that for those one or two scenes it felt like i was watching a stage play.that was not that big a deal,and doesn't really diminish the film.i actually really liked this movie.it's not an epic like The Deer Hunter.they are about similar era and have similar themes,but they are two very different films.i thought The Deer Hunter was great,and i also think this movie was great.it's the acting in this one that makes it so great.for me,Jacknife is a 10/10",Positive "I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Well, let's make no mistake about it. ""Munchie Strikes Back"" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?

Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was ""borrowing"" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.

Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. ""Munchie Strikes Back""'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, ""Munchie Hangs Ten"". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10",Negative "Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.

Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early ""Nouvelle Vague"" of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's ""Satiricon"", which work has actually great resemblance with ""The Mother and the Whore"".

Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café ""Aux Deux Magots"", where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.

It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time.",Positive "This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on ""Phil of the Future"", so i don't know what happened in ""Cow Belles"". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters ""fame"", and she displays no talent what so ever.

At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.

Awful",Negative "Is this a stupid movie? You bet!! I could not find any moment in this film that was creepy or scary. Stupid moments? Plenty. Stupid characters? You bet. Bad effects? Everywhere! Rick Baker may have gone and done bigger and better things, this is not one of them. Oh well people gotta start somewhere. Dr. Ted Nelson is cheesed. He is the most whiny doctor I've ever seen. He's got a melting man running amok out in Ventura County somewhere, he's not overly happy that his wife is pregnant (probably cause she's 55 years old and weighs 90 lbs) and there's no crackers to be found anywhere. Plus he's got the not-too-helpful general on his hinder wanting to find astronaut Steve. And the local sheriff wants to know what's going on even though Mr. Nelson can't tell him anything. There also some random characters thrown in for good measure who encounter the melting man. Eventually the movie ends and out monster gets scooped into a trash can to become compost. In the end it's just what you need for a great MST episode.",Negative "Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of ""official"" reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me.",Positive "Well, i can and will be very short. This is a wrong-balanced, non-convincing film that could have been a little bit better. The script seems to not know which way to go ... from funny to cliche-wise serious... it's a bit silly. That plus too much sentences we have heard before ""the hacker is in florida, or no, he is in madrid, no he is in ... , he is screwing the signal"".

4 out of 10",Negative "this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.

how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!

get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema.",Negative "Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made ""Cyborg"" prior to it and the blistering ""Nemsis"" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said ""Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush."" However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.",Negative "There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.",Negative "Although others have commented that this video is just an edited version of the two shows: ""Fire in Space"" and ""Living Legend"", if you watch the original shows you'll find that dialogue from this video edition was edited out. I found this video version much better because scenes and lines were added to it. I would say if you want to see the show in its original version, see the video versions on VHS. They have more to offer the fan than the original episodes being offered on DVD now. Another good video is Conquest for the Earth, which had more scenes from Galactica 1980 than did the actual broadcasts themselves. Overall, I rate this as a 10 because it gives you more to enjoy than what the networks wanted to show in the time slot they gave the producers.",Positive "Carter Wong plays a noble hero on a quest for a book of healing which leads him seeking ultimate vengeance! The pacing is good in this film and there are a lot of fight scenes to keep the movie going. The flying guillotines look wicked and the main villain has no problems using them. Although the story isn't strong, the action is fun and draws you to the very end (which I felt could've had a sequel).

Campy and dark, this is great ol skool kung fu!!",Positive "Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little ""bleeps""? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?",Negative "It is a Frank Zappa axiom that ""music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."" If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: ""Wow."" (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.

The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.

Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.

The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of ""knowing your history"", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that ""present conditions"" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.

There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.

The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual ""Return to Glory"", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.

This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.",Negative "Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.

Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, ""Go get her, Tiger!"" For the rest of us, I say, ""See _A Guy Thing_."" It's a lot of fun.

Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its ""Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!"" plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.

Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.

And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.

A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.

But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.

A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.

For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.

And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say ""It's a Guy Thing,"" and leave it at that.",Positive "I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on ""shallow blockbuster"" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.

Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating ""One"" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts.

After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as ""jazz hands."" And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it.

A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, ""Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?"" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more ""frontal"" play. The answer they came up with was, ""I'm sorry.. what was the question?"" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.

Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie.

A Chorus Line is pure schlock.",Negative "It's a good thing I didn't watch this while i was pregnant.I definitely would have cried my eyes out and/or vomit. It was Kind of gruesome mainly disturbing. I personally thought the baby was adorable in its own twisted little way.However as a mom I cringed when Beth stabbed herself in the stomach and when Virgina aborted the child during her 3rd trimester with rusty utensils no less.Also,as an animal lover i almost cried when she scratched the cat to a bloody pulp.However,As creepy and sinister as the baby was I was rooting for it to live.And as twisted as the movie was I am extremely intrigued to see the sequel...... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....... ...... .....",Negative "This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this.",Negative "Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.

As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next!

Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like ""Madam X"" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good.",Negative "My God, what an incredible movie it is! Reminded me so much of the similar scene in Mel Gibson's movie ""We were Soldiers"" when ""the Company is not lost, they're just cut off"" And the other scene in Pearl Harbour when the British officer says to Ben Affleck ""If all Americans are like you, then God help the nation that goes to war with America!

Put all 3 movies together and you would have enough BULLSHIT to fertilise the entire Sahara Desert.

The story of the cut-off Battalion may be real enough but the movie could have done without all that American preachy jingoistic propaganda attached to it. There were audible groans in the cinema during the above-mentioned scene in Pearl Harbour (no kidding either) The Lost Battalion however is really in a class of its own ….

""Americans think they are unbeatable…inspired bravery…. "" I actually cringed and damn near puked at all the swill being spewed out throughout this diarrhoeic disaster (the movie that is)

The fighting scenes were well made (3 stars for that) but if the script is manure, then wrapped even in brightly coloured ribbons, it is still manure. The writer, James Carabatsos, also wrote those other screamers…Hamburger Hill, No Mercy , Heartbreak Ridge. Someone, please shoot him before he writes any more such garbage.

The Director, Russell Mulcahy is an Australian too. God, the shame!!!",Negative "Most action films are crass of Hindi cinema, especially of Sunny and his family

The film is typical Sunny type with bashes, big dialogues and melodrama

The film also has typical Rajiv Rai ingredients of many henchmen and a weird villain

The starting is okay and then the shift to Kenya is good but then the film goes on and on

The sequence of events move at a slow pace and nothing that great happens

They are many stupid scenes like the Kenya policemen are shown like jokers especially Sharat

The climax too is prolonged

Rajiv Rai does an okay job Music is okay, only 1 song works and that is the last TOOFAN Camera-work is good

Sunny Deol is as usual, Chunky acts like a monkey while his serious scenes are laughable, Naseer is alright heroines are pure wood Amrish Puri is not even half as scary as he was in TRIDEV the rest are okay",Negative "I cried my heart out, watching this movie. I have never suffered from any eating disorder, but I think this must be a very true picture.

Alison Lohman is excellent! She expresses these feelings amazingly well. My teenage years came back to me so vividly. Anyone who has gone through difficult times as a child or teenager will be able to relate to this movie. I recommend you all to see it!

The music is great too - I've now discovered Diana Lorden.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Alison Lohman in White Oléander, because I am positive she is perfectly suited for the role as Agnes.",Positive "When I found this film in my local videostore I expected it to be another cheesy American vampire film in the same vein of ""The Lost Boys""(1987).To my surprise ""To Die for"" is a really good movie.It's a little bit corny at times,but still there are enough stylish set-pieces and surprises to satisfy vampire enthusiasts.This is a perfect mix of romance and horror and it's surprisingly gory at times.Highly recommended.",Positive "Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.

I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.

For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10",Negative "This animation has a very simple and straightforward good vs. evil plot and is all about action. What sets it apart from other animation is how well the human movements are animated. It was really beautiful seeing the fleeing woman running around on the screen from left to right and look around, her movements were done so well. Why don't they use this rotoscopic technique more these days? It's quite effective.

Fire and Ice, in it's prehistoric setting and scarcely dressed women, was clearly devoted to showing the beautiful damsel in distress in various sexy ways, her voluptuous body serving as pure eyecandy. Some may hate this and regard it as yet another moronic male sexual fantasy, others (including plenty of women) will adore it's esthetic quality. I for sure did not mind! Bakshi just loves animating lushious, voluptuous babes, as can also be seen in Cool World, and I don't think he has to apoligize since it's pretty much animation for adults. But I had also enjoyed this animation as a child and I never forgot it.

This one was just special, so different from the standard Disney or Anime fare, and for that reason alone well worth the watch since it's possibly Bakshi's finest. For those who like animations with lushious women: try Space Adventure Cobra as well.

I give Fire and Ice 8 out of 10.",Positive "Dreck about three beautiful women in California who go to cover some festival (or something). All the hotels are booked so they have to spend the night in a creepy old house. What they don't know is that there is a creepy inhabitant there who likes to kill...

Yawn. Boring, pointless, utterly stupid ""horror"" film. Bach and her two buddies are certainly beautiful but the movie itself is dull dull DULL! Bach and her friends are no actresses--their faces are blank all the way through. The final ""revelation"" is laughably predictable and there's no blood or gore to keep you interested along the way. There is some expected gratuitous female nudity but that's not enough to save this. Boring, pointless and unknown (for good reason). A 1 all the way.",Negative "This movie is amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, ""Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?"" and my humble addition, ""May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out.""",Positive "This U.S soap opera, 'Knots Landing' has all the entertainment value of being trapped in an elevator. Every episode contained plots such as rape, murder, kidnapping and drug smuggling, not much different to the plots of other drama shows of the period. As for the cast, I've seen better actors on a cereal box. From the mid to late '90's, repeats of 'Knots' stunk up U.K-Gold like a mountain of mildewing nappies. I regret to announce that I had to suffer this as my mother was a huge fan of the show and would watch it religiously. Though since then, re-runs have been few and far between (let's hope it stays that way). The only positive thing that can be said of 'Knots' is the catchy saxophone signature tune, later used as the title music for the I.T.V sitcom, 'The Upper Hand'. Great legacy that, eh?",Negative "I must admit I do not hold much of New Age mumbo jumbo. When people ""exchange energy"" I always wonder how much kJ is actually exchanged and how it may contribute to solving the global warming problem. When energy ""is enforced"" I always wonder how they managed to violate the laws of entropy and still are without Nobel prizes. When people feel how well instinct enables them to flawlessly navigate through the complexities of life I wonder how they fail to do a simple thing like finding the train station.

But then again, this is not the first movie with plot holes and most of them I find perfectly acceptable and entertaining. If this were the case with ""The Celestine Prophecy"" I wouldn't burn this movie down, but unfortunately it isn't. Every actor seems to be bored out of his head and unable to grasp what he are actually supposed to be doing on location. This results in many ""Ah-s"" and ""Oh-s"", like I tend to do when talking about quantum physics with somebody who actually knows what he is talking about and pretend to understand.

The direction is uninspired as well. You might expect something more from the guy who did ""What dreams may come"", but hey, I supposed he got well paid for the job and adopted the attitude of a New York taxi driver: ""It's your money, buddy.."" The only one who seems to be having fun is all-time bad guy Jürgen Prochnow. Not only does he have a job, he is one of the few actors in this movie who may have a few wise cracks at this eternal and terribly boring New Age chatter.

This movie is much like one of these dinner dates when you find out that your date is actually a horrible bore who seems to be unable to shut up. At one moment in time it seems the words turn into small ping pong balls that are thrown to your head incessantly until it hurts.

If you want to have a good time and have to choose between this movie and sticking safety pins in your eyelids, take my advise: choose the latter.",Negative "Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag (""Norman... Is that you?""). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.",Positive "I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.

It is not.

The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.

The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.

The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.

Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.

The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel.",Negative "Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad.",Negative "This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.

Season 1

1. The Sopranos: 5/5

2. 46 Long: 4.5/5

3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5

4. Meadowlands: 4/5

5. College:

6. Pax Soprana: 5/5

7. Down Neck: 4.5/5

8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5

9. Boca: 4.5/5

10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5

11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5

12. Isabella: 5/5

13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5",Positive "I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!",Negative This was a silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!,Negative "I originally saw this movie as a boy at the old Rialto Theatre as part of a Saturday afternoon matinée triple bill which also featured Vincent Price's ""Last Man on Earth"" and Mario Bava's ""Nightmare Castle."" I had nightmares about blood lusting ghosts for a week afterwards! Though I didn't know it then, all three movies would prove to be classics of the genre. No wonder I was so scared! Though all three films frightened me, it was Castle of Blood that had the most profound impact.

It was the first on the bill. I didn't even get to see it from the beginning as we were late getting to the cinema and missed the first 20 minutes of the movie. That's lot to miss since the edited print only ran about 79 minutes (the unedited runs 87minutes). But despite this, the dark creepy atmosphere (complete with ruined castles, fog enshrouded cemeteries, shadows and cobwebs), Gothic set design, strong acting, and suspense (especially the last 20 minutes) scared the bejeepers out of me and made a lasting impression It took me years to finally get a copy of the film for my collection. Since it was a French - Italian import, it wasn't a movie that showed up on the late show in Winnipeg. I couldn't quite remember the title (remember I didn't get to seen the beginning of the film and was scared witless), and to make matters worse, the film had been released under literally a dozen different movie titles (aka Danze Macabre, Coffin of Terror, Castle of Terror, Long Night of Terror, etc...) and the USA/UK working title ""Castle of Blood"" was very generic, similar to dozens of other ""b"" horror and suspense films, making it illusive. But thanks to the internet and perseverance, I found it at last! What a treat to finally watch the film in its entirety after so many years! It may not have had quite the sheer emotional impact that it did when I was a boy, but as haunted house movies go, it's stands up well and compares favourably to similar iconic films of the period such as ""The Haunting,"" ""The Innocents"" or ""Black Sunday,"" The film is a fine early effort of Italian director Antonio Margheriti. It stars 60's scream queen icon Barbara Steele and features a well written screenplay by Sergio Corbucci about a sceptical writer (Georges Riviere) who, on a bet, spends the night in haunted house and unsuspectingly becomes part of an annual ongoing ghostly story. The hypnotic Steele is well cast as the ghostly love interest - as is Arturo Dominici as Dr. Carmus, and Margarete Robsahm as Julia.

Many of the tricks Margheriti employs to create the film's eerie atmosphere (cobwebs, creaking doors, fog, etc) are bound to seem cliché to a modern audience, but they work far more effectively in black and white than they ever could in modern day colour. Rather than using body counts and special effects, the film creates scares the old fashion way, relying on a good story, stylish direction, fine set production, interesting camera work, and strong acting performances. Margheriti does a marvellous job taking these elements and building the film's suspense as the horrifying paranormal secret of the house gradually reveals itself to the unwitting writer.

The film is not without faults. The pace drags at the beginning of the film (ironically, the 20 minutes I originally missed). This is probably worsened by Synapse films effort to restore the film to its original length. Though fans will likely appreciate the chance to see the film restored - in terms of the intro - it may have been more of hindrance than a help. The English voice dubs are merely passable and, in the restored scenes, the language shifts from English to French (English subtitles provided) which is sure to be annoying to some viewers.

However, Synapse Films deserves kudos for the quality of the print. Clearly some effort was put into its restoration and deservedly so.

I enjoyed the film immensely and highly recommend it to aficionados of 60's Italian Goth films, or anyone who enjoys a good ghost story.

Rob Rheubottom Winnipeg, MB Canada",Positive "I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.",Negative """Godzilla vs King Ghidorah"" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about ""Japan is great"" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.",Negative "Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered ""classic"" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...

THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...

I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for ""tension"" and ""suspense"" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a ""must-see"" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10",Negative "There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.

Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )

Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved ""Uncle Martin"" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.

The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and ""one-take"" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.

Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used ""It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World"" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.

What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!

If they HAD to remake ""My Favorite Martian"", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic?

Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in ""zero"" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.

One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.",Negative "The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her ""aunt's"" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.

It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.

It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.

You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.

If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.",Positive "Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.",Positive "This is the kind of movie you regret you put in your VCR. It is some weird bad rip off version of Stephen kings movie ""Misery (1990)"". I cannot understand how this movie got a 5.2 score, because it has no story what so ever, and when the movie finally ended, I was relieved.

This movie should have been released as a short-movie instead.. to much time is spent on the same thing. And as in every bad movie, everything happens just at the end of the movie in a 10-15 minutes time span...

So, before you decide to watch this movie, be sure to put some new batteries in your remote control, because you are going to do whole lot of fast-forwarding... don't worry, you wont miss anything important.",Negative "Hitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.

This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.

All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.

In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough.",Positive "Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf.",Positive "This is a movie that should be seen by everyone if you want to see great acting. Mr. Torn and Ms Farrel do an outstanding job. I think they should have it on TV again so a new audience can enjoy it. Wonderful performances.

It gives you a real feel of what the pioneers had to go through both physically and emotionally. Great unheard of movie.

It was done when Ms. Farrel was very young. I had always thought of her as a comedian, but this certainly is not a comedy and she is just wonderful. There is very little dialogs, but that just make it seem more real. Mr. Torn as always is a great presence and just his breathing has great feeling. I must see movie.",Positive "This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.

The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and ""with it"" to be understood by us mortals.",Negative "This one and ""Her Pilgrim Soul"" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie ""Il Mare"" (later remade into ""The Lake House"". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film.",Positive "...about the importance of being young, having friends, and most of all enjoying life. Through the experience of four friends, Ligabue shows to the audience how life was back in the 70's in a small italian village. the four carachters represent the four different aspects of human behavior; also the drug experience is well represented.",Positive "I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? ""Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!""

This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.",Negative "Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **",Positive "Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of ""Misery"" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.

Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin

My Grade: C-

Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase",Negative "I was intrigued by the title, so during a small bout of insomnia (fueled by my curiosity...), I stayed up and watched it. I then checked my TV listings and watched it again! There is one very obvious realization that occurred to me when I saw this film- in spite of politics, traditions, culture, etc., teenagers everywhere are virtually the same. The characters of the kids from Belgrade could have been transported to, let's say, somewhere in the American Midwest during the same time period, and language differences aside, would be impossible to tell apart from any of the local teens of that era. They certainly displayed the same growing pains and preoccupations, politics aside: Music, sex, movie idols, music, drinking, sports, music... As a matter of fact, much the same things that occupied my time growing up in 1970's Southern California.

This was a bittersweet story, but the joy of youth made it very enjoyable. The characters, especially the young actors, were completely believable also. I won't say this was the Yugoslav ""American Graffiti"", but I will say that it fits in nicely with other 50's-themed movies.",Positive "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Packed with memorable moments (such as the quote above, immortalized by Primus), Deliverance tells the story of four guys who take a trip to the wild woods to go white water rafting and get away from the big city for a while only to find that their fun soon takes a bad turn. This is not a Hollywood film. There are virtually no special effects whatsoever, the setting is extremely realistic, and nothing at all is sugarcoated or made pretty. The city boys look like city boys, and even the tough guy Louis, portrayed with precision by Burt Reynolds, is clearly at the mercy of the wild on this trip. This is a perfect example of a what-if film. What if a few friends went river rafting in an area of the woods that none of them were familiar with, and ended up desperately trying to avoid being tried and convicted for murders that they were forced to commit to save their own lives?

There is clearly a very strong element of the film that deals with societal and class structure and the relationship (or lack thereof) between rural and urban peoples. When the four guys arrive in the woods early in the film, they clearly do not quite know how to interact with the people who live out there, and they speak to them as though they are unsure whether they will understand or be able to communicate. This communication block is most memorably illustrated in the dueling banjoes scene, in which they are trying to gas up the car and truck and get someone to drive the vehicles downriver for them. While Drew and the obviously inbred and probably mentally deficient boy on the porch are dueling with their guitar and banjo (one of the best scenes in the film), Louis is having some difficulty buying the gas, and Bobby makes a comment about genetic deficiencies and how pathetic it all is. When the boy turns away from Drew, who had offered to shake his hand after their stupendous jam session, Bobby tells him to give the kid a couple bucks, knowing that none of them are quite sure how to react.

This is the kind of thing that we see in Deliverance that sets up so much of the tension that is to follow. This great scene where a lot of fun was had (including the funniest 'redneck dancing' scene until O Brother, Where Art Thou?) ended with everyone awkwardly unsure what to do around each other. These people are apples and oranges, and they live by completely different rules of life. The people that Louis, Bobby, Drew and Ed encounter in the hills grew up separated from modern society and modern laws, and live by the rules of nature, which do not include thou shalt not kill. Confused by their awkward behavior, the four friends set out on the river, hoping for the weirdness to end and for the adventure to begin.

(spoilers) When they are briefly separated from each other and Ed and Bobby run into the hillbillies beside the river who quickly turn unpleasant, the uncertainty about the way that these people live - which was established by the scene above - comes into play to create the most tension during the scene. I think that a good sign of a quality thriller like this is that the tragic element of the film, namely the assaults and actual murders, takes up a very small amount of screen time but remain some of the most memorable parts of the film. There is no gratuitous violence here, it's all there for an obvious purpose and it achieves a startlingly powerful effect.

The move is about the violent clash of two very different kinds of people, and what can happen when they inadvertently find themselves at war with each other. The trip down the rest of the river after the assault, which takes up the majority of the film, delivers some spectacularly effective tension, and keeps you on the edge of your seat while not bombarding you with so much happening that you become numb. It is surprisingly effective when we find out that Ed may very well have killed the wrong man up there on the cliff, and the tension in the film doesn't even let up when the three surviving members of the team reach the bottom of the river, because they deliver a questionable explanation to the police about what happened up there on the river and why the deputy's brother-in-law is missing.

This is a very disturbing film, which is a testament to its success, because it's pretty obvious that a film like this is meant to shake people up a little bit. The hillbillies are the human (i.e. more realistic) version of the sub-human rednecks seen in childish but fairly similar films like Gator Bait and Gator Bait 2, neither of which could possibly ever be compared to a timeless film like Deliverance. When we follow these four men through their fateful weekend in the woods, the natural element is so real and we get to know the men so well and in such a subtle fashion that it's almost like we, as individuals of the audience, are really a fifth member of the team. It's not often that a film is able to come across that way.",Positive "After reading several good reviews as well as hearing nice things about it by word of mouth I decided to rent Come Undone. I must say I was rather disappointed. The story was hard to follow because the film is set as a series of flashbacks between the present and recent past that are very poorly executed. The characters, despite the actors best efforts are flat and uninteresting. The sex is and nudity are more explicit than they need to be. I've never seen a film where they seemed so unnecessary to the plot. The ending is very anti-climatic and leaves many unanswered questions to a story line that wasn't explained well to begin with. In my opinion, a waste of time.",Negative "This movie was awful. I had a very difficult time watching this all the way through. I didn't get the point of the movie. What was the point of this movie? The soundtrack was bad, acting was bad and the story uninspiring. The two main characters in the movie were very boring and their dialog was uninteresting. There was no chemistry among any of the cast members. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that most of the actors were first timers. The movie could have easily been cut down to about an hour and half without losing the plot. That indicates how many useless scenes there were in the movie. I would have rather ha a root canal during the two hours of the movie. I want those two hours back! If you want to watch good, funny movie that is family friendly and made by a bunch of mormons, watch Napoleon Dynamite instead.",Negative "My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson.

We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.

It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in ""editing in camera"", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics).

Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.

Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos.",Positive "Perhaps the most personal of David Lynch's works is his most accessible. This time, rather than the enigmatic thematic structures that may or may not involve a plot or represent anything more than vivid nightmares, Lynch provides a reflective, fragile meditation on the universal subjects of aging and family and finds reassurance in both. The simple true story of an Iowa farmer (Richard Farnsworth) who rides a lawn mower to Wisconsin to visit his estranged, stricken brother, there are still plenty of the unique and original visual dreamscapes (some rather striking aerial shots of the heartland, filmed by veteran cinematographer Freddy Francis) to make it an undeniable Lynch effort and characterizations that are some of his most unforgettable. Farnsworth is excellent in a stoic yet personable way, allowing the stories he hears on his journey to become a part of his life, and Sissy Spacek turns in some of her finest work in a smaller role as his mentally challenged yet observant daughter (whose painful secret is revealed in a poignant way through a gentle turn in the sensitive script by John Roach and Mary Sweeney) but the rest of the small cast to a person delivers indelible performances, one of the most notable being Barbara Robertson, whose accidental killing of a deer is both uproarious and sad at the same time. But that's vintage Lynch with his ability to engage and unsettle you at his best. To those unfamiliar with Lynch or know him only by his violent, disturbing reputation, this is an excellent place to begin; for those who know his work, this is one of the finest in his repertoire.",Positive "In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.

I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.

While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously.",Positive "I screamed my head off because seeing this movie was my first movie going experience ever at some 13 months old. I remember it being incredibly bloody and it made me angry. I watched it again on tv a few years ago. Big mistake -- the acting is wooden, the plot non-existent and the movie lacks merit unless 23 year-old T & A is what gets you going... 0/****",Negative "This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up!",Positive "While the acting and directing could be argued as having some merit - the storyline is a very poor wannabe Vietnam movie with the country name simply changed.

At the very least, for a movie to hold some credibility, try and have some semblance of accuracy in equipment, weapons and tactics. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of the behaviour of the troops as a norm.

Aside for the limited use as silly propaganda about the South African Defence Force, it serves little purpose - definitely no entertainment value.

Aspiring movie makers - this is how not to make a war movie. Do some research, and have some pride in your product.",Negative "A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part.",Positive "VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as ""old wine in a new bottle"" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.

VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.

Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately:

* When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.

* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.

* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.

Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.

Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).

On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see!",Positive "I think I agree that a lot of the comments here must be fake. Even if the movie is not necessarily bad its definitely below average. ""Dark Remains"" is basically a Ghost Movie with a premise of your own ghosts and bad emotions haunting you. The movie starts off already with 2 stories loosely inter-webbed which even later are not tied together. A couple loses its child which is found slashed in its bed. They move to a country house to flee their past and guess what... the house is haunted, kind of. From here on Dark Remains starts off very slow with some scary moments indeed (The first ghost appearances are nice and the flashlight sequence also worked very good). OK, then... Woman sees ghost of daughter, other ghosts of people died in accidents or suicides appear, man tries to solve secret of houses past, woman gets depressed, strange neighbors appear. Its pretty much all been there, but the premise of it being their own emotions is nice, so you wait for the twist. There is no twist, you are just confused by a haunted house history story, the strange neighbor, a totally pointless creepy prison and the dead daughter thrown together with a photo-idea reminding me a lot of ""The shutter"". The end is ridiculous because when you start and end a movie this slow and with piano music its pretty lame to include some hoards of ghosts at once which look like a zombie flick, of course just to return to slow pacing and piano music.

To make it short... Dark Remains could have been a nice scary ghost story if the script was not trying to go everywhere and arriving nowhere.Too many stories mushed together which just don't make any sense and contradict in the basic atmosphere of the movie. And beside... please never use abandoned prisons again. Its so worn off and in this case it even makes no sense at all. ""Hey, there is this creepy prison uphill, lets shoot there"". I guess a lot of ingredients in Dark Remains were thrown in the mix like this.",Negative "What a weekend. Two days ago I watched the first half of ""War Games 2: Dead Code"", now ""While she was out"". I am trying to come to a decision which one was worse in terms of pain in my mind while watching. I guess, ""While she was out"" was worse.

It has all been said before in other comments: Unrealistic, illogical etc. - the only thing I really have to add is that at some point I started feeling more for the evil guys than for the woman because I would have recommended her for a Darwin award if she actually died (only watched first half, so I don't know). Soon I was at two Darwin awards (if that's even possible) for her immense stupidity.

And, hey: Produced by Kim Basinger? So she did not only know the script but was also responsible for bringing this waste of money to us, the people? I consider humans who waste considerable amounts of money to be evil because the money could have used to feed and clothe quite a few people instead of hurting 80 percent of those who saw it in the cinema and giving 20 percent, which are idiots, a good opportunity to show just how much of an idiot they are.",Negative "Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at ""The Wedding"".

This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.

I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the ""American Pie Presents"" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.

2/10",Negative "I have never read the book""A wrinkle in time"". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than ""Merlin"".

How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.

The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go ""WTF"". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go""WTF"". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.

A wrinkle in time:*/****",Negative "this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'

the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.

the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.

overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.",Negative "Actually I'm surprised there were so many comments about this movie. I saw it as part of a Slavic film festival at a major American University. But nobody in USA has heard of it, which is a real shame! The dynamics between the people are what makes it both funny and sad. They are stuck together on a long bus trip--someplace most of us have been!! But I never had one like this!!

My favorite scene is the one where they stop for the funeral. Then the man & woman sneak off for some Lovemaking in the forest but everybody follows them to watch without them knowing! Just as she raises her skirt and he enters her all the way--the consumptive starts hacking & they realize everybody is watching!! Talk about surprised! But...you really have to feel for them even if it is hilariously funny! When you see the ending it is sort of ironic that they enjoyed themselves while they did! Serb humor at it's best!",Positive "The sword fighting was out of this world, the fights scenes spectacular without the flying on a wire techniques (until the end) that are way too common today. The scene with Chan and Pray was probably the highlight of the movie. The characters in the assault on the bad guys mansion were cliché but the movie is comfortable with it. An injection of humour from Woo.

The plot with it's twists and turns was unpredictable and exciting and you couldn't tell who was good or bad or which side people were on.

A good sense of suspense and well timed surprises. The depth of the story is quite intense for a flighty film of this genre and reaches you in ways most kung-fu flicks don't.",Positive "### Spoilers! ###

What is this movie offering? Out of control editing and cinematography that matches up with a terrible plot. It is sad to see Denzel Washington's talents go wasted in trashes like this.We are certainly hinted how the Mexicans cannot save themselves, outside forces needed, possibly militaristic, American ones. And we know the father is a shady character, he is a Mexican after all, unlike the wife who appreciates Creasey more because he is American. He killed all of them thinking she died. And did she? Of course, she won't, she is a young kid and you are not supposed to hurt the sensibilities of the Hollywood fan. The trade off scene was the only thing that prevents me from rating it below the ""implausibly successful""(as some critic pointed out)'Taken'. The nausea of such movies will take time to go. It is in the rating of such movies that we have to doubt IMDb's credulity.7.7 for a movie like this and 7.0 for My Own Private Idaho. Go figure! Mine will be in the range of 3.5-4.0",Negative "Robert Jannuci,Luca Venantini, Venantino Venantini, Alicia Moro (two stars are from CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD (I wonder what Luca is doing these days, probably a lawyer or something, like Bela Lugosi Jr. or David Hennessey there kid from dark shadows who wants to forget dark shadows existed). Anyway, in the Thorn EMI video there's no music over the opening credits . . . but the music is great once it comes in . . . with the Italian movies the films aren't as good as the music . . . my favorite scene is with the boy with the robot arm following loner-Alien through the desert. Alien says why are you following me. Tommy answers because i feel like it . . . Alien replies which way are you headed Tommy says West then Alien says well, I'm going east. So after a while of walking, the theme playing in the background Alien looks up and sees Tommy sitting on a rock petting a pet hamster . . . tommy looks up and says to Alien, what took you so long . . . I love this movie . . . It touches my heart. The boy with the robot arm needs a daddy and Alien is drafted in to being Tommy's daddy in the desert . . . oh yeah, they need water too . . . not THE ROAD WARRIOR (MAD MAX 2) by any means but a silly western/post nuke movie with a boy with a robot arm and Alien and Trash and a few other good guys with a mean chick with an iron claw and CRAZY BULL who looks like Wez in the Road warrior . . .on Sunday afternoons on channel 57 (philadelphia, PA) after church i'd come home and find this on . . . often . . . too often. Love it. 10/10",Positive "Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this.",Negative I loved this movie and will watch it again. Original twist to Plot of Man vs Man vs Self. I think this is Kurt Russell's best movie. His eyes conveyed more than most actors words. Perhaps there's hope for Mankind in spite of Government Intervention?,Positive "SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!

I had read the book ""1st to die"" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.

This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.

There is no ""payoff"" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.

The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become ""GENERAL HOSPITAL"" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.

I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.",Negative "When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if ""people will get it"".

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; ""What was the point?"" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is ""The best British film in years"". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly ""I can see people sitting at home saying ""this isn't amazing, its sh$t"" he isn't wrong.",Negative "Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the ""U.S. wars are cool"" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.",Negative "I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called ""new jigsaw puzzle""....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film",Negative "Unfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.",Negative "I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.",Negative "There are a number of things that are not correct, although this is not too important since what happened to whom and when is still in dispute. The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.

I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots. I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.

Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film ""Backbeat"", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.

There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been ""queer-bashed,"" only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along. Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering ""Corn-Flakes mit Milch."" My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught. That's rock 'n' roll.

Well worth watching.",Positive "Okay, here's what I think about Jack Frost. I looked at the morphing box for the VHS tape and I thought to myself, this looks interesting. I rent it and I take it home. Boy was I right, it is interesting. They put serial killer's spirits in dreams, in walking corpses and inside every day machines. But this has got to be the most unique place to put the spirit of a serial killer. Inside the body of a snowman. I liked all the friendly snowman images littering the landscape, the pot holder, the snow globe, etc. I like the actor who played Jack, he put some fun into a killer really not seen since FREDDY KRUGGER. That's right, I said it. FREDDY KRUGGER. It's that level of ""cool"". I wish some of the puppet effects were better, the mouth movements could have matched better. But I chalk that up to a small budget. The cast does a great job, there are some great one liners and scares to make any hardcore horror fan jump. All and all, a great story, good effects, great dialog and a great cast. I give JACK FROST...9 STARS",Positive "When the scientist and family man Matt Winslow (Robert Urich) finally accepts the invitation to work the Micro-Digitech Corporation in a space suit project, he moves with his beloved wife Patricia (Joanna Cassidy) and their son Robbie (Barret Oliver) and daughter Chrissy (Soleil Moon Frye) to a huge modern house in the corporation compound. They meet their friend Tom Peterson (Joe Regalbuto) and his family completely adapted to the new lifestyle, and Tom invites the Winslow family to join the Steaming Springs Country Club. Tom tries to seduce Matt telling him that every member of the club has a meteoric professional ascension in Micro-Digitech, but Matt is not tempted with the offer. Later he is introduced to the director of the club, Jessica Jones (Susan Lucci) that befriends Patricia and convinces her to join the club with her children. Matt feels the changing in the behavior of his family and decides to investigate the club, finding an evil secret about Jessica and the members.

In the 80's, when I saw ""Invitation to Hell"", I liked this movie that partially recalls ""The Stepford Wives"", with people changing the behavior in a suburban compound. I have just seen it today, and I found a great metaphoric message against the big corporations, when people literally sell their souls to the devil to climb positions and earn higher salaries. I am not sure whether the author intended to give this interpretation to the story, but I believe it fits perfectly. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Convite Para o Inferno"" (""Invitation to Hell"")",Positive "But the fun is in the journey.

I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.

The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.

Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry...",Positive "Like The Jeffersons, Good Times was one of the those classic American sitcoms which was never aired in the UK, not to mention it came out in the 1970s- a decade where of which I wasn't born yet.

But like most fans of the show, I watched a few episodes on You Tube- and afterwards, I loved it.

The Evans family are headed by James and Florida- two parents trying to make ends meet, and who despite their lack of qualifications, encourage their children, who have their own aspirations in life to fulfil them and to take their chances. James was the strict but loving dad, who didn't dare hesitate in disciplining J.J, Michael and Thelma- should they over-step the line. Whilst Florida, in contrast was a fair, kind- hearted and considerate mother and loving wife, although she was in many ways similar to James, with regards to their attitudes to parenthood and family values from an Afro- American perspective.

The kids were just as lively and entertaining as the parents themselves: J.J was an aspiring artist with a goofy personality and crazy sense of humour, who would often wear multi-coloured outfits, and whose 'DY-NO-MITE' catchphrase is as infectious and familiar as Arnold Jackson's 'Whatchoo talking' 'bout Willis?' from Diff'rent Strokes. Michael was the smart-alec, who dreams of becoming a lawyer, whilst sister Thelma had her own dreams and hopes. Her verbal taunts with J.J were mostly hilarious, as was the love/hate relationship between brother and sister, which was played out extremely well by both Mike Evans and Bernadette Stanis.

Over the seasons, there were a few cameo appearances made, most notably from Janet Jackson, Debbie Allen and a young Gary Coleman as himself! I actually prefer Good Times over say, The Cosby Show, which was an 80s show because a) I preferred the Evans family over the Huxtables, both in terms of a) characterisation and b)as I felt it tackled serious and difficult social issues, in a way that resonated with many viewers. It was a comedy but it was also a social commentary which aimed to highlight the lives of working class, Afro- Americans in 1970s America. The Cosby Show attempted to cater to the mainstream audience in a 'candy coated' way, as the Huxtables were portrayed as Blacks who easily assimilated themselves into an upper-class U.S culture we would associate Whites with, whereas Good Times in contrast was much more 'edgier' and it was not afraid to address themes such as drug and child abuse in a realistic way. I actually found that whilst The Cosby Show can be fun to watch at times, it lacked that bit of 'sassiness' which Good Times has and of which made it trendier and cooler.

The show did jump the shark during the latter seasons, as it continued after John Amos's character, James died in a freak accident (in reality, it was known at the time that John had quit Good Times for good. And so, his character's death was written as it is on the show). Without John, the show suffered and alas, it lost a lot of its charm.

Still, for a sitcom, Good Times ticked all the right boxes. If only they had shown this in the UK during the 80s. As it certainly is, as JJ would put it, 'DY-NO-MITE!!'

My rating: 8 and a half",Positive "When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: ""Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society""",Negative "A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another ""crazy"" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.",Negative "This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic ""ticking bomb"" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.",Negative "Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out ""The Candidate"" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no ""power"". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find ""The Candidate"" watch ""Wag the dog"" again or even ""Bulworth"".",Negative "I know that this is an unpopular position concerning Zabriskie Point, but I LOVED this film. I know, I know - I can legitimately be called an Antonioni fanatic. I love L'Avventura, I love La Notte, I love L'Eclisse, I love Red Desert, I love Blowup, and I love Professione: Reporter (aka The Passenger). The only Antonioni film that I don't love, the only one I've ever given less than an 8/10 (and one of only three that I have given less than a 10/10, La Notte and L'Eclisse being the other two, though I fully acknowledge that I have to see both of them again), is Beyond the Clouds, which can fairly be called an awful film. However, there is not better awful film, if you catch my drift. So if you're NOT an Antonioni fan, you should only logically ignore me. If you are even a casual fan, though, and you are wondering whether this particular film, whose name, when spoken, is often followed by

a spit, which is generally despised by even Antonioni's admirers, is at all worth seeing, the answer is YES.

Okay, the reason that people tend to hate it is because 99% of film watchers care ONLY for the narrative of a film. Well, that's not exactly true. If a film is amazing in a particular aspect, say acting or cinematography or direction, and just decent in its narrative, film watchers might very well love it. But a film can be the most amazing visual masterpiece and have a lame or illogical story - that's another thing that has ruined the cinema over the years: logic - then they absolutely hate the film. I will actually agree with that in some ways. As much as I may dislike it and want to change my view, it really is difficult to love a film whose narrative I perceive as poor. However, other people tend to get annoyed at a loose narrative. This is certainly what must drive viewers away from Zabriskie Point. I could relate the story to you, but you probably would just think it was nonsensical. It is, actually, but, to me, that just made the whole endeavor more fantastic and beautiful. I'd actually compare it favorably to 2001, which is my favorite film. However, 2001 is perfectly coherent compared to the rambling narrative of this film.

What Zabriskie Point has in spades is mood. The music helps a lot; the score includes a lot of acts of the day, including Pink Floyd. The mood is kind of similar to the moods of Antonioni's other masterpieces, filled with loneliness and desolation. Also the freedom that comes from that. The best sequence in the film is when the lead man and woman (her name is Daria, I know, but I don't remember his name) pull over in their vehicle next to a historic marker on a desert highway. There is, beyond the stone wall that has been erected to keep cars from flying off, an ancient lakebed. It's basically a rocky desert, and the two go to play in it. The setting is enormously beautiful. The woman says: ""This is such a beautiful place. What do you think?"" The man: ""I think it's dead."" There's no inclination to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. This is a lot like sentiments expressed in other Antonioni films - characters are constantly wanting to disappear or become invisible. Instead of David Locke, the protagonist of The Passenger, fed up with journalism, we have the young hippie sick of his friends' politics - he thinks they talk too much and don't act out what they feel is right, or at least he says he does. It seems to me more like he just wanted out of the situation.

The film is also simply amazing visually. Antonioni's films are all identifiable by just a few frames, but his visual style was always building. I like The Passenger more than I do Zabriskie Point, but Zabriskie Point might be his ultimate accomplishment in that aspect. Well, that might sound odd - L'Avventura and Red Desert are amazing pictorially. I think it's the camera movements that are particularly amazing here. He obviously made a ton of money on Blowup, which was the biggest arthouse hit of its day, the biggest ever at that point. He spends it well here, especially with his aerial shots. One of the film's greatest sequences involves the man, who has stolen a man's private airplane, dive-bombing Daria in her car.

The one thing that can be fairly criticized is the film's politics. They're certainly facile. Not that hippies were facile, but that Antonioni's vision of hippies - there weren't any in Italy, of course - are bizarre and, well, filtered through a foreigner's eyes. There's a rather childish criticism of advertising, but it's a criticism that still exists today. I say, can't you people just ignore it? What does it hurt? Are you walking around buying things you don't want because of billboards? Or there is also the criticism against capitalism. Daria, a secretary, works for a company that is stealing the land in the desert - the land that she and the man enjoyed to themselves - in order to make cheap, suburban homes for families. Rod Taylor, a very underrated actor whose most famous roles were in The Time Machine and The Birds, plays her boss. The ending, which I won't ruin - you've got to see it - is almost offensively cheap. I can, though, understand the treatment of police officers. Not that I disdain them generally, but they were awful at the time. They can still be awful now. They've always had too much power.

These trite arguments against the American way of life still don't effect my opinion of the film much. I find this filtered view of America extremely interesting. I really don't think a hippie would have disagreed with Antonioni. 10/10.",Positive "That's what one of the girls said at the end.

Is the soccer game a metaphor for a qualifying game between the girls (or more broadly, a free-thinking group) and the authority? ""To Germany"" means to a future that's of hope?

It's one of the most unforgettable cinematic experience I've ever had -- despite the crude cinematography and plot, and mild over-acting (though I like the cast -- they're lovable and well above the expectation for amateurs). The ridiculous situation is well captured. I can feel the deep frustration being denied to a game (being female and a soccer fan) and I cannot stop thinking how to make a convincing disguise. I wonder why there's no women's section in which protection from dirty language and bad behavior can be provided -- defeating the flawed reasons for the deny.

The movie is very cleverly made -- the amazing title, the filming during the actual game, the spontaneity, and various methods to put the viewers into the shoes of the characters -- the game that's so important but inaccessible (not shown), the luring light and cheering sound from the stadium, the confinement of the van, and the uselessness of it when those inside connect with the celebrating crowds outside. I can feel the comfort coming from the radio, the drinks and the food, and of course, the kindness and consideration from each character to others. During the end credits, I am amused that no character has a name -- he's just any ""soldier"" and she's just any ""girl"" or ""sister"".",Positive "For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.

Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.

The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.

The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.

Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it.",Negative "I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).

I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.

This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).",Negative "The Finnish version of Robert Altman's ""Short Cuts"", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the ""routines"" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art.",Positive "My mother and I were on our way home from a trip up to the North East (mainly Massachusetts) when we decided to take a little detour a attend a film festival in Boston. Now, I don't know much about film so I thought this might be a bit educational. The first movie we saw was this one, THE ROMEO DIVISION. Now, I don't know about you but I thought this was great! I'm from Texas and where I come from we don't see too many motion pictures so this was a pleasant surprise. My mother insisted that it was too violent, but said that I didn't know much about what she was saying but this was a great picture. I was shocked by the fight sequences they were great. Also, I am a big fan when the good guys win so I was thrilled when Romeo ladies killed all of the bad guys. This was true brilliance. I'm not sure when it's getting released on video but if you get the chance you should check it out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A word to the wise though, it is rather violent and there many cuss words so you may not want to let your children watch. It's more for adults.",Positive "In 1996's ""101 Dalmatians,"" Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the ""tin can."" Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!

So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed ""102 Dalmatians."" In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!

I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the ""Atomic Dog"" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!

""102 Dalmatians"" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A ""103 DALMATIANS?????"" LOL

10 stars",Positive "Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules.",Positive "During the whole Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy Craze Paramount Pictures really dropped the ball in restoring this Anthony Quinn directed Cecil B. DeMille supervised movie and getting it on DVD and Blu Ray with all the extras included. It is obvious to me that Paramount Pictures Execs are blind as bats and ignorant of the fact that they have a really good pirate movie in their vault about a real pirate who actually lived in New Orleans, Louisiana which would have helped make The Crescent City once again famous for it's Pirate Connections. When the Execs at Paramount finally get with the program and release this movie in digital format then I will be a happy camper. Paramount Pictures it is up to you to get off your duff and get this film restored now !",Positive "Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.

The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.

There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.",Negative "Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair.

At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. ""Warning! Major plot twist ahead!"" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape.

""Just Cause"" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like ""Intruder in the Dust"" and ""To Kill a Mockingbird""; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's ""Music Box"", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of ""Cape Fear"", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of ""Cape Fear"", made four years before ""Just Cause"".

(There is a postscript. Just as ""Just Cause"" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle ""High Crimes"").

The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and ""Just Cause"" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, ""The Rock"", the following year).

There is another problem with ""Just Cause"". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal ""issue"" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10",Negative "I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared ""stereotyped"" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing ""humble scientist"", are we? ""I have equations dancing in my head,"" another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.

Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.

4/10",Negative "Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.

Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.

I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.

The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.",Negative "The second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure (""This is the history of a failure"" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.

What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting.

In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.",Negative "Like all cult TV shows, there is a group of people who love The Twilight Zone so much that they rate practically every episode like they are the greatest shows EVER. While several of them are indeed wonderful classics, the truth is for every great episode, there were several that were mediocre and at least one that stank. However, like die-hard Trekkies, these Zone lovers insist that all of them are gold. In fact, this is what initially got me to review some individual episodes of a couple cult series instead of the movies I usually watch.

While this isn't the worst episode ever made nor is it among the very worst, it is poor by any reasonable standard. A widow watches a long procession of Civil War soldiers going past her home. In the end, a very unexpected twist is revealed and there isn't a whole lot of excitement or suspense here.",Negative "I can't believe I actually sat through the whole thing. This movie has the worst acting since Killjoy.

Here is a brief outline of the plot: The movie starts out with Jojo and that other chick sitting around on the beach, drooling over a skinny blonde-haired beach ""hunk"" who looks like he hasn't been to the gym a day in his life. Somehow, everyone knows him, and every single chick in the movie wants him. UH OH! Here comes the competition! The stereotypical ""hot chick"" and her best friends, who drive an ugly pink car. We soon find out Jojo's mom got the job of a lifetime in Australia, which means that Jojo would have to move and leave her best friend behind (oh no, I think I'm gonna cry). A huge storm comes, and fills their swimming pool with nasty water. Somehow, for no apparent reason, the little chick falls into the pool, and comes face to face with, yup, you guessed it, a MERMAID! This is where the ""story"" really takes off. Basically, they want to get the mermaid to fall in love with the ""hunk"".

This is a preteen flick with acting so bad, it makes the 80's look like the pinnacle of Oscar-worthy performances. This movie has all the clichés possible... the best friends, the ""hunk"" who everyone wants, the ""hot"" bad girl and her bitchy friends, the scary old man... you name it, it's in there. I took one for a lot of people by watching this. Consider my hour and 40 minutes a sacrifice to you. Please, don't see this movie. Don't make it so I suffered in vain.",Negative "This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent ""Mr Muckerji"" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! ""Fools -- Fools -- all my life""...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.",Positive "After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.

I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.

The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.

I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'.",Positive "I absolutely loved this movie. I bought it as soon as I could find a copy of it. This movie had so much emotion, and felt so real, I could really sympathize with the characters. Every time I watch it, the ending makes me cry. I can really identify with Busy Phillip's character, and how I would feel if the same thing had happened to me.

I think that all high schools should show this movie, maybe it will keep people from wanting to do the same thing. I recommend this movie to everybody and anybody. Especially those who have been affected by any school shooting.

It truly is one of the greatest movies of all time.",Positive "Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.

Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus… a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory!

This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones… well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.

What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.

There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time!",Positive "Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was ""just OK"", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.

But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.

There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.

Very recommended.",Positive "After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of ""Beowulf & Grendel,"" which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard ""Viking"" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in ""Kingdom of Heaven,"" and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from ""Beowulf & Grendel""! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.",Negative "I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.

The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...

They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...",Negative "When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, ""have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?"" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. ""Pure cinema"" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!",Positive "I gave this film 8 out of 10, reserving 10 for e.g Amadeus, and 9 for Slumdog Millionaire most recently. This film is close to Slumdog, but it is difficult to judge on such film without understanding Balkan life, mentality and a soul which Kusturica presents masterfully. To understand it you really need to be one of Balkan. This is an amazing movie, much better and more contemporary of his previous films, which are boring at this time, I think Kusturica is moving forward with this movie. I like humour (Balkan humour), photography is an art itself, each scene is artistic to the limit. Plot is probably a fairy tale , don't recall it now, but remember reading to my daughter-going-to sleep a similar story.",Positive "This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.

2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is ""camp blood"" (lame), the name of the clown is ""the killer clown"" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be ""athletic."" For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very ""girl like"" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.

If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.",Negative "Unlike some comments, mine is positive. This movie wraps around the dinner table with a group of friends, some you like, some you don't. A few are related--mother, daughter, son. Their stories are not one smooth, happy with everyone and everything, type of life--much like real life. Some story lines do not evolve, they just happen. But like true families and good friends, they stick together. The wanna-be parents who are buying a baby are such a--holes! You are happy for the ending. Poor Delmar is stuck between a rock and a boulder taking care of herself, her mom, her son, and trying to keep all their lives together. This does not end with a sunset walk or house in the 'burbs and all are living in a dream world, but is a very real life portrayal of people living day to day, month to month. Overall, this is a good story and a great movie!!",Positive "In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.

The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting ""actors"" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.

Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.

""Deliverance"" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.

At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.

Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.

Overall, ""Deliverance"" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history.",Positive "First of all there is Gujarati Theatre then there is Bollywood. Both have their strengths and fan following. Director Vipul Shah should look elsewhere instead of Gujarati Theatre when making a Bollywood production. First he made Aankhen (adapted from a Gujarati play) - which had a unique plot, but could not hold as a Hindi film. Now he's adapted another Gujarati play and named it Waqt - a race against time. In sum, the emotions are alien. The plot development is not for Hindi films. For example, the role play between father and son is best left to Gujarati Theatre - don't bring it in a Hindi film. Even the comedy track is best left for the Gujarati stage. All performances are average - nothing to shout about - barring Shefali Chhaya Shah who is fantastic.",Negative "The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.

Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for ""klinghoffer samir kuntar"" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?

*** possible spoilers ***

The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.

The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?

On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)",Negative "In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the ""tails"" were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on.

The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.

The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle).

The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).

The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle.",Positive What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie!,Positive "A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.

This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.

I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.

Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.

As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.

The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck.

The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.

If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.

Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra!",Negative "The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...

It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee.",Positive "If you see this movie, you know you will see an extense video-clip of popular music. But you will find more. Incredible FX, great music and a nice time to enjoy with your kids. If you compare this movie, you have to remember is a pop extravaganza. Clips of ""Man In The Mirror"", ""Leave Me Alone"", ""Smooth Criminal"" and Beatles' ""Come Together"".",Positive The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?).,Positive "Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???

(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)",Positive "Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy.After his great fist movie called El fondo del mar and the spectacular TV pro-gramme Los simuladores,Damian Szifron made another great work.Tiempo de valientes looks,for moments,a movie made in Hollywood.Diego Peretti and Luis Luque are two great actors and here,they have great performances.The movie is very fun and funny and it has superb moments.Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy that I totally recommend if you wanna have a great time.And I have to congrats Szifron for all the talent he has.

Rating:9",Positive "To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.

The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.

'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.

Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!

Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.

Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.

Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.

SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)

I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.

",Negative "Story of Ireland in the 70/s. This film is a beautiful reconstruction of small time Ireland in the 1970/s. All the gang are there see below. Master Boyle , The Boys , The Cannon , SP O'Donnell , Senator Doogan's Daugter , Rose , Agnes , Maura and Una. See this film.Feel Ireland as it was.

",Positive "supposedly based on the life of Domino Harvey a model turned bounty hunter. I'd say 95 % is fabricated. I always keep an open mind when it comes to movies, however, this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film, something i can't stand, and to top it off, the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b!ch I just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it's too incoherent, too flashy and way too boring, it's a who gives a crap kinda story, and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer's own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat's life.",Negative "In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.

The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.

After the film ""ends"" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves.

The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.",Negative "A serious comedy. Ross Hunter-produced movie version of the French play ""Les Joies de la famille"" (later Americanized as ""A Very Rich Woman"") is plush, well cast, occasionally funny...and unfortunately timeless. A wealthy California widow, who appears to be frittering away her money, is railroaded by her two grown, greedy daughters, both of whom are afraid Mama Rosie is carelessly spending their inheritance. The whole issue of a vital--but aged--woman sent to a rest home against her will, and later having to prove herself sane in a court hearing, is touchy material for a comedy (and to his credit, director David Lowell Rich doesn't overload the picture with crass gags or obvious sentiment). Some of the humor is a little broad and doesn't work, yet Rosalind Russell understands the gravity inherent in this scenario and never hits a false note. Sandra Dee is also good as Rosalind's granddaughter, and James Farentino is very charming as a young lawyer. The movie has so much to say about the importance of our elderly, and the ways in which they choose to spend their remaining time, that the seriousness of ""Rosie!""'s theme almost gets lost in the rush to a happy ending. The picture leaves you smiling--and at the same time wondering how many older ladies there are who were never quite so lucky. *** from ****",Positive "A very ordinary made-for-tv product, ""Tyson"" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.",Negative "This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of ""Hamlet"" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of ""Monty Python and the Holy Grail"") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of ""ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack"" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.

Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.

The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the ""How All Occasions Inform Against Me"" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's ""I'll never be hungry again."" This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered ""Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet."" Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.

While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.",Negative "

The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!",Negative "I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging ""Clueless"" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. ""True Crime"" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward ""feel"" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.

Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!

""True Crime"" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.

Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in ""Carriers"" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played ""Captain Arends"". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show ""Who's the Boss"" may also have an interest in ""Carriers"" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.

""True Crime"" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing.",Positive "One more of those brilliant young men who went all out and dared to make a teen romance film( can i actually call it that?- it would invoke the devil out of its fans)on a micro budget but packed with such taste, sensitiveness and maturity. Peter Sollett- you deserve more admiration and respect.Thanks once again for demonstrating to the powers that be in the ""industry"" that stereotypes can be flushed down the toilet. One location,a handful of rich characters, low budget,good acting(and that too amateurs),decent lighting - worshippers of true indie cinema should watch more of this and STOP watching...well...you know what.",Positive "What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?",Negative "I had to give this film a 10 simply because it did what so many films thrown at black audiences have FAILED MISERABLY to do. This film was void of all the video whore clichés, and it also skipped the gangsters, rappers, and foul language. It examined several relationships among physicians, African Americans, and African American male/female romantic relationships on a completely new and refreshing level. I was highly impressed with the films careful mix of light headed humor with some pretty tough and heavy issues. The film will leave you feeling happy and sad all at the same time. I saw it at the Boston Film Festival as well. It premiered at AMC Loews Boston and I truly hope this film makes it to much larger audiences. Black People (and EVERYONE else) would LOVE a movie like this- if only the industry was SMART enough to put them out there!

As an extra- if your a doctor, a resident, a medical student, a premedical student, married to a doctor, have a doctor sibling, have a doctor in the family, or know a great doctor period- they would love this film as well. It portrayed residency and the practice in a true-to-life way that was greatly appreciated by the doctors, residents, and medical students who viewed the film. Dennis Cooper completely his residency in internal medicine- so he definitely applied his knowledge/experience to the film and that is greatly apparent.",Positive "Calling this a romantic comedy is accurate but nowadays misleading. The genre has sadly deteriorated into cliches, too focused on making the main couple get together and with very little room for ambience and other stories, making it formulaic and overly predictable.

The Shop Around the Corner does not suffer from these illnesses: it manages to create a recognisably middle/eastern-European atmosphere and has a strong cast besides the (also strong) nominal leads; I avoid using the words 'supporting cast' as for example Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan) has a central role to the film and his story is equally if not more important than the romance.

The 1998 film You've Got Mail borrowed the 'anonymous pen-pal' idea from this film and has therefore been billed as a remake. This is not correct and in fact unfair to the new movie - it shares the genre and borrows a plot element, but that is all.",Positive "I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several ""big rig"" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on ""humanizing"" a group of people who they regard as ""overlooked"" and ""invisible"" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of ""So what"" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further ""enlighten"" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.",Negative "I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.",Positive "Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.

*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.

Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.

Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again.",Negative "Deeply emotional. It can't leave you neutral.

Yes it's a love story between 2 18 years old boys. But it's only the body of this movie. And it's been removed. You only feel what happened with these boys. You feel the soul of the movie. With of course some action, some sex, but this is no pornography, too many feelings.

It was only a summer ""story"", and it became, from love to hate, almost to death, the most important time of their lives. I loved it, you will too, whatever your feelings are.",Positive I love playing football and I thought this movie was great because it contained a lot of football in it. This was a good Hollywood/bollywood film and I am glad it won 17 awards. Parminder Nagra and Kiera Knightley were good and so was Archie Punjabi. Jonathon Rheyes Meyers was great at playing the coach. Jazz (Parminder Nagra) loves playing football but her parents want her to learn how to cook an want her to get married. When Jazz starts playing for a football team secretly she meets Juliet (Kiera Knightlety) and Joe (Jonathon Rhyes Meyers) who is her coach. When her parents find out trouble strikes but her dad lets her play the big match on her sisters Pinky (Archie Punjabi's) wedding. At the end her parents realise how much she loves football and let her go abroad to play.,Positive "East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.",Negative "Though this may not necessarily be a so-called ""classic"" film by today's standards, it's still worth seeing. The main reason why is because after experiencing this film, you get the feeling that you've also experienced the counter-cultural idealism of the 60's, no matter however good or bad.

I happened to see this film in an English literature class at SUNY Geneseo, and though at first it appears to be just a meaningless composition of 60's icons, the film is far from being simply ""thrown together"".

My point is that if you leave the film feeling unsatisfied and confused, the film has done it's job: it's conveyed a desolate view of the future that leaves you feeling unsure and angry. It was perhaps this same feeling that the film sought to explore in the youth it exemplified.

As such, ""Zabriskie Point"" may not tell a very good (or interesting) story, and at the same time its characters may be one-sided and predictable. However, it also conveys so well this sort of clichéd, rebellious desire to get out of the existence which both Mark and Daria must share. Even the anti-establishment students are as inauthentic as the gov't they rebel against.",Positive "This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.",Negative "Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.

But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.

The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.

Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...

overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well.",Positive "A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind.

The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy.",Positive "By my ""Kool-Aid drinkers"" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as ""No, Giorgio"" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.

Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a ""romance"" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and ""this is just fun"". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.

Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.

Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.",Negative "This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!

10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!",Negative "When I was six yo, I learned about a series called ""Los Campeones"", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch ""The Champions"" and ""the Avengers"" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of ""The Prisoner""!) but lasted also a few years later with ""The Tomorrow People"", ""the Worst Witch"" (I just me, or this is ""Harry Potter"" in girl, of course, before As much as I want ""The Campions"" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for ""Dr. Who"" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), ""People of Tomorrow"", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!",Positive "I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, ""Say it like this..."" Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.",Negative "I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.

I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).

However, even though the title includes the word ""zombies,"" it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.

I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.

I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies.",Negative "Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played.",Positive "Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.

The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.

The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.

This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.

After starting out as a ""this could happen to anyone"" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.",Negative "Kristine Watts (Molie Weeks) is broken apart, missing her lover; she is not able to overcome her love for him that is lost in the past. She hires a stranger (Douglas Davis) and gives a list of her mistakes to him with things to fix. But time is irreversible and sometimes the cure for the pain is a tragic end.

The first point that impresses in ""The Cure"" is the stylish cinematography that alternates black and white with color. The concise and sharp screenplay is capable to develop a tragic and bleak tale of love with an unexpected plot point in the very end in less than eight minutes. The soundtrack is beautiful but the volume is a little loud and associated to the fact that English is not my native language, in some moments I needed to repeat some words whispered by the narrator. The unknown lead actress has magnificent performance and is extremely gorgeous. I hope to have a chance to see her again on the screen. Last but not the least, the debut of the director and writer Ryan Jafri could not be better. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available",Positive "What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous).",Negative "I don't know if this is a sitcom or not, but I agree that this is one of the greatest television shows ever. It's great that this show still airs. And I love Michelle. It's cute on the episodes when she was a baby and she talked, and she sometimes said something funny. Aw.

This show can relate to children and teens and.. well, families as they struggle through rough times and try to work it out as a family. I don't know who would ever turn down an opportunity to watch this show with someone.

I love the episode when I think her name is DD.. the older girl accidentally stole a sweatshirt, and she learned a lesson about stealing. That was a great episode. An example that this TV show shows the family working things out as a family.

I recommend this show for everyone.",Positive "And I'm serious! Truly one of the most fantastic films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. What's so wonderful is that very rarely does a good book turn into a movie that is not only good, but if possible better than the novel it was based on. Perhaps in the case of Lord of the Rings and Trainspotting, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. But I think that the fact that Louis Sachar was involved from the beginning helped masses, so that the film sticks close to the story but takes it even further. This film has many elements that make it what it is:

1. A unique, original story with a good mix of fun and humour, but a mature edge. 2. Brilliant actors. Adults and kids alike, these actors know how to bring the story to life and deliver their lines with enthusiasm and style without going overboard, as sometimes happen with kids movies. 3. Breathtaking scenery. And it doesn't matter if it's real or CGI, the setting in itself is a masterpiece. I especially love the image of the holes from a birds eye view. 4. A talented director who breathes life into the book and turns it into technicolour genius. The transitions in time work well and capture the steady climax from the book, leading up to the twists throughout the film. 5. Louis Sachar! The guy who had me reading a book nonstop from start to finish so that I couldn't put it down. He makes sure that the script sticks to the book, with new bits added in to make it even better. 6. And speaking of the script! The one-liners in this are smart, funny and unpatronising. But there are also parts to make you smile, make you cry, and tug at your heartstrings to make you love this story all the more. 7. Beautiful soundtrack. There's not a song in this film that I haven't fallen for, and that's something considering I'm supposed to be a punk-rocker. The songs link to the story well and add extra jazz to the overall style of the film. If you're going to buy the film, I recommend you buy the soundtrack too, especially for ""If Only"", which centres around the story and contains the chorus from the book.

I do not work for the people who made Holes, by the way, I'm just a fan, plugging my favourite film and giving it the review it deserves. If you haven't seen it, do it. Now. This very instant. Go!",Positive "Like most other reviewers I have first seen this movie (on TV, never on the big screen), when I was a teenager. My Dad has always regarded this film highly and recommended it to me then, and I must say he was not only right, but this movie has stayed with me forever in the more than 2 decades since I saw it first time. I have seen it two or three more times since then (just a few days ago I gave it another watch) and it has not lost anything of its impact with time. It still a great and well worth to be seen movie! Manr regard Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY as one of the first and best later western, which had a realistic look at life in the old west, but the hardly known LAST HUNT is definitely the better movie and was even half a dozen years earlier. Actually it was probably 3 decades ahead of its time, or maybe it still is ...

Although thinking hard and having certainly seen 100s of western (I like this genre) I can not remember any western as bleak and depressive as this one. Two men bound together, partly by hate, partly by not seeming to have other choices, surrounded by beautiful Ms. Padget, a crippled old man and a young Inian, leading the life of buffalo-killers until fate reaches out for one of them.

Nobody who has ever seen this movie will be able to forget its ending and the last frames of this gem. When the camera moves on and away from Mr. Taylor a white buffalo skin comes into sight (on a tree)and echos from the past, when all the hatred began, are present again. Mr. Taylor has got his buffalo, but in the end the buffalo got him.

Aside from the top performances of everybody involved, the intelligent script and the great dialogue, it should also be mentioned, that THE LAST HUNT is superbly photograped, I have seldomely seen a western that well shot (aside from the ones directed by Anthony Mann, which are also all superbly photographed), that all the locations are cleverly chosen and that even the soundtrack fits the picture very well.

And director BROOKS is really a superb storyteller. Master craftsmanship!He has made quite a couple of really great movies and was successful in nearly every imaginable genre, but even in an as prolific career as this one, THE LAST HUNT still shines as one of his best, if not his best.

Definitely would deserve a higher rating, compared to the 7-something RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY enjoys.",Positive "Although the beginning suggests All Quiet on the Western Front, this silly and superficial version of war falls far astray of its much better contemporary. This depicts the funnest war ever fought, with the first hour and a half devoted to romance and good times.

When we finally see some battle, it is lame: An enemy plane flies over? Shoot it down (in one shot). Sniper in the tree? Kill him before he gets a shot off. Enemy soldiers in the woods? Not to worry, they gladly surrender. Ho-hum.

Tepid, turgid, predictable...

",Negative "The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film ""Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script –sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee"" worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family!",Negative "

I have to admit to enjoying bad movies. I love them I watch all of them. Horror especially. My friends and I all gather after a hard week at school and work, rent some crazy tapes, order a pizza and have a blast. One of the ones we got at Hollywood Video, was this one, Zombie Bloodbath. This one had a great box, so I was expecting less than usual.

The story is about a housing project that is built over a nuclear facility that has had the above-ground layers bulldozed, and the other underground layers are simply covered up. The inhabitants of this neighborhood find the covered up facility when some kids fall into a hole inside a cave. This wakes up some zombies.

From this point on, it's chunk-city. The gore effects and action never stop until the end credits roll.

OK, it's not great art, but this one, with it's in-joke dialogue and over-the-top gruesome stuff was our favorite of the evening. Actually, it was one of the best ""party tapes"" I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And you could tell it was done on no money, with a bunch of crazy people. There are hundreds of zombies, and the Director looks like Brendan Frazer (he has a cameo) and it is just a wild trip.",Positive "I don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.

You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.

I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.",Negative "I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the ""retro hacker"" perfectly. ""O Nolo Mio""!!!!!",Positive "I can remember this movie from when i was a small child, i loved it then and I still do now. I managed to get it on DVD for my 18th Birthday and was over joyed because I had found it so difficult to find it previously and it had only be rented when i was younger. My favourite character is Charlie because he learns to be a good dog. The movie is filled with fun songs and music. The animation is brilliant and the character voices are perfect. This movie has always been a tearjerker for me but i think that if i hadn't seen the movie when i was small then i would not find it as brilliant and fascinating as I do although I still believe that I would still like it because I am Really into animated movies.",Positive This was a cute movie until the ending. The ending was merely one more despicable effort to emasculate men and empower women at their expense. The girl refused to listen to reason and logic and used her passive/aggressive nature to control and impose her will on the guy who ultimately yielded his power and control over the relationship to her. It is not by chance that she was sitting behind the driver's wheel in the car as they drove away at the end after he had to beg her and plead with her to take him back. This movie is a victory for all women who think they should be in charge of all men and in control of their relationships with them. It was a despicable movie for that reason.,Negative Absolutely horrific film. Ameteurish and it isn't funny at all. Lead character played by Mehmet Ali Erbil is very annoying. Edits by E.T and star wars is just plain stupid.

Actor Yilmaz Goksal is the only good think about this movie. He should master his English and move to Hollywood. Hollywood can not find an actor with his qualities. Other than Goksal this movie is a garbage.

Director Gani Mujde is a comic writer and this movie is his worst written work to this date.

Music of Cem Karaca is another plus of this waste of money. Actor Sumer Tilmac also have some presence. Actor who plays the three sons has no talent what so ever.,Negative "When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.

Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors – actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.

Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere – such as that of Stanley Kubrick.

Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.

A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his ""Iconoclasts"" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.

One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers.",Positive "I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it!",Negative "I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in ""From Here To Eternity"" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt.",Positive "Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with ""Ossessione"", a film based on James Cain's ""The Postman Always Ring Twice"", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.

The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.

What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.

Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.

The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.

""Ossessione"" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.",Positive "admittedly, I first picked up Ranma 1/2 when I was around twelve. I was in the library and searched desperately for something good to read. Then, I went to the Comic/Manga section and spotted this book. At my first few reads through the chapters I didn't really know what was going on, but I knew that I LOVED it. I even took it home for a few more reads over. Frankly, I wasn't getting anywhere. And then, about five months (I'm 16 now) ago my friend was watching some anime series and I remembered about this Manga. I couldn't remember what it was called, but recalled that the author was Rumiko Takahashi, creator of Inu Yasha. I Googled it, and then made a rash decision to watch all 161 episodes. At first I was a little thrown off by the 1990 graphics, but it didn't really matter in the end. No anime has ever made me laugh so hard and rewind, watch again. I once watched 45 consecutive episodes within a day. I don't know how I did it... but I couldn't stop. Eventually, after about two days, I grew obsessed. I even dreamt--as crazy as this sounds--about watching Ranma. Never have I found a series so enjoyable, so funny, and so heartwarming to watch. To this day 161 episodes are not enough to keep me satisfied. Of course the cliffhanger ending was enough to make me go bonkers, but the series alone was enough to make me continue reading.

Ranma 1/2 is about a boy named Ranma Saotome and his dad Genma Saotome. INTENSE martial artists. They are so intense, that they went to the ancient training grounds in China and became 'cursed'. The grounds were full of different pools of springs, and if you land in one, you take the shape of whatever drowned there when doused in cold water. For Genma, that was a PANDA, and for Ranma that was a... girl! It's a very crafty fun loving story. On top of that, Genma promises his friend that Ranma will marry one of his daughters to keep the Tendo dojo alive. 'Course the one he gets matched up with hates his guts and the feelings mutual. Obviously they start to like one another, but both way to stubborn to admit it. But.. Genma has a history of doing this. He promised Ranma to many girls.

Trust me. It's worth watching. It's humorous, heartwarming and all around amazing.",Positive "This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages.",Positive "Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.",Negative "...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.

The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.

Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.",Negative "Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the ""place in the country"" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled ""Delbert""-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an ""Our Gang"" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is ""Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!"" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted.",Negative "As a massive fan of fantasy in general, and of the works of Neil Gaiman *in particular*, I've been looking forward to this film so avidly, so hungrily and with such a bittersweet mixture of anticipation and fear of disappointment that I can scarcely believe it's finally here. And you know what? I needn't have feared, the film version is bl**dy awesome. Different from the book, but in a good way - less whimsical, more comical, still deeply sweet and enchanting.

The special effects are absolutely spot-on, and make magic feel a natural and proper part of the world of Wall without being overtly spectacular and intrusive.

Proper attention has been paid to storytelling and pacing, and the casting in the main is a triumph, with the ghostly Princes (whose roll-call read almost as a ""Who's Who"" of currently cool British comedy - Rupert Everett, David Walliams of Little Britain fame, two of the blokes from Green Wing etc) stealing most of the best lines and pretty much all of the films' funniest moments, which exist in abundance.

In fact, the one minor criticism I have at all of the film is that sometimes the comedy elements become a little OTT, subtlety goes out of the window to the detraction of the main story.... Ricky Gervais' cameo, for example, was far too much just ""Ricky Gervais doing his usual David Brent from the Office comedy persona"" for my liking, and in my opinion, created an unwelcome and jolting break from the magical spell of the progressing story (though in fairness, from memory I believe the Ferdy character in the original book WAS pretty ""Ricky Gervais""-esquire when I think back on it)....

But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise immaculately cast and scripted fairytale with a good mixture of action and romance. Charlie Cox, as the protagonist Tristan, captures the correct mixture of naivety, subtle comedy and self-realisation required for a story like this where a ""humble young boy embarks on life-changing quest""; Claire Danes as Yvaine is beautiful, feisty and just ever so slightly alien or ethereal, a perfect interpretation of her stellar role; Robert De Niro, in the cameo every reviewer is talking about, is indeed deserving of praise, rollicking good fun (looks like he's having a ball, too)... and Michelle Pfeiffer is triumphantly cool and nasty as wicked witch Lamia, my favourite performance of the film overall. If you enjoyed her deliciously b!tchy performance in the recent ""Hairspray"" then you will thoroughly enjoy her in this, too.

So to round off this review: you will laugh, for sure, you will smile, and you may even cry - Stardust is a beautiful, heart-warming fairytale for all the family, with a heart of gold and more sass 'n smarts than is immediately apparent. One of my all-time favourite films is the absolutely fantastic Princess Bride, and Stardust is being readily likened to this with good reason as it is a very similar type of film exploring similar themes and territory.... and just as The Princess Bride remains fresh, smart and funny twenty years after its initial release, I believe that the delicious tongue-in-cheek sweetness of Stardust will be showing up as a family favourite on our televisions (or equivalent future device!) for many years to come.",Positive "Although The Notorious Bettie Page is well acted and shot, is is, at best, a Cliffs Notes version of Bettie's biography. The film mainly centers on her work with Irving and Paula Klaw, the brother and sister team who produced the bulk of her most famous photos. It does not detail her life after posing, aside from her religious rebirth. It cites ""The Real Bettie Page"", by Richard Foster as a source, but it ignores Bettie's later years of mental illness and incarceration in a mental hospital. The narrow focus of the biography can be debated, but the majority of Bettie's fans and the ""civilians"" would probably be more interested in her modeling career, which is what they get.

The film is well acted, with Gretchen Mol faithfully reproducing the look of Bettie, as well as conveying the sweetness that her photos exuded. The character is played as rather naive, a probable byproduct of interviews given by Bettie in recent years. It is more likely that Bettie was aware of the nature of her photos but rationalized it as acting and costumes.

The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Chris Bauer and Lili Taylor playing Irving and Paula Klaw, and David Strathairn as Estes Kefauver. The film errs with the character of John Willie, played by Jared Harris. John Willie never met Bettie Page and was not involved in photo shoots with the Klaws. Harris plays Willie a bit like Peter O'Toole, in his more debauched state.

Despite the quality of acting, the film is a bit of a disappointment in terms of depth. The story is rather cursory and we never feel that we truly get to know Bettie. Much like her photos, it's just an image. It does tend to exaggerate Bettie's notoriety. Her photos were mainly seen in and around New York, in a very narrow market of underground and cultish publications. Her real fame came after her photos were reprinted in the late 70's and 80's, and the Cult of Betty Page (as her name was usually spelled) grew. Bettie's greatest exposure (pardon the pun) was in Playboy, appearing in the January 1955 issue (the Christmas photo, which is staged in reverse in the film).

The film is well done, if rather shallow. It is able to sustain interest until the end and showcases many fine performances. It hits the high points of Bettie's life, but ignores many details which would have given it far greater depth. The ending is rather a let down. It feels rather abrupt. Still, the movie is definitely worth viewing by anyone interested in Bettie, or even the time period. The soundtrack is great, really pulling the viewer into the 1950's. If nothing else, the film stands as a showcase for America's burgeoning sexuality and the clash with its Puritan past. It's also a peek at an icon for both men and women.",Positive "What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it.",Positive "Samuel Fuller is hardly one of America's great directors. I'm not sure he qualifies as one of Hollywood's great craftsmen. But he certainly ranks up there with the best of Hollywood's true professionals who were willing to march to their own music. During the time he worked for Hollywood studios, he knew how to take an assignment, shape the middling material handed to him and then turn it quickly and efficiently into something usually better than its parts...on time and on budget. Pickup on South Street is a case in point. On the surface it's one more of Hollywood's early Fifties' anti-Commie movies, complete with appeals to patriotism, a hard-boiled hero and a slimy (and copiously perspiring) bad guy. Fuller turns this bag of Hollywood clichés into a taut, exciting drama with any number of off-kilter twists. The hero, Skip McCoy, is a three-time loser, a petty crook with soft fingers who doesn't change his stripes until the very end. The girl in the caper, Candy, has a level of virtue that would be easy to step over if you're so inclined. One of the most appealing characters, Moe Williams, is a stoolie. And in an unusual approach to Hollywood's battle against Commies, the appeals to patriotism fall on deaf ears; the hero isn't motivated by anything so ennobling. He just wants payback for a personal reason, and winds up becoming...at least for now...a good guy.

Plus, all the actors were mostly assigned to Fuller by the studio. He had to make do. Richard Widmark by now had established his presence as an actor and star, but Jean Peters is a surprise. She gives a fine portrait of a woman sexy and dumb, and no better than her boy friends...or her clients...want her to be. And Richard Kiley, who later would become a two- time Tony award winning star on Broadway, is convincingly slippery and cowardly. It's hard to remember that he was the actor who inflicted on us, I mean introduced to us, ""The Impossible Dream"" from Man of La Mancha,

More than anything else, this tale of a pickpocket who picks a purse in a subway car and finds himself with microfilmed secrets instead of cash, pursued by the Feds and the Commies, moves straight ahead with great economy. The whole enterprise, with a classic noir look, only takes 80 minutes to tell. The dialogue, with Fuller as screenwriter, has that party corny, partly pungent hard-boiled pulp fiction style. ""That muffin you grifted...she's okay,"" one character says to Skip about Candy. Fuller moves us just fast enough from scene to scene to keep us hanging on what will come next. Then Fuller throws in the character of Moe Williams. All of a sudden the story ratchets up to a whole new level of interest, part comedy relief and part sad inevitability.

The thing I like best about the movie is how the opening exemplifies Fuller's talents and strengths. In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, starting right after the credits, Fuller is able to instantly power up the movie, to establish for us what the story is about, and to show us what kind of characters -- Skip and Candy -- we're going to be involved with. And he does this with so much enticing curiosity in that hot, packed subway car that we can just about feel Fuller setting the hook to catch us.

Says Glenn Erickson, in my opinion one of the best of movie critics, ""In what should be an inconsequential story, Sam Fuller defines his peculiar view of Americanism from the bottom up: stiff-necked, aggressive self-interest that when fully expressed recognizes what's wrong and what's right and isn't afraid to fight for it. As always in his work, the individuals who fight the hardest for their country are the ones least likely to benefit from the effort."" He's right, and it makes for a movie still vivid after 55 years.",Positive "Good exciting movie, although it looks to me that it's not been recorded on location in Thailand, it still looks realistic. Nice story about some girls having 'fun' in one of the most beautiful countries on the world. In real the Thai people are very kind.",Positive "A strong woman oriented subject after long, director Krishna Vamsi's Shakti- The Power, the Desi version of the Hollywood hit Not Without My Daughter is actress Sridevi's first home-production. A story about a woman's fight against harsh injustice.

The story of the film revolves around Nandini (Karisma Kapoor) who lives in Canada with her two uncles (Tiku Talsania, Jaspal Bhatti). There she meets Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), falls in love with him and they soon marry. Their family is complete when Nandini has a boy, Raja (Master Jai Gidwani). But their happiness is short lived, as the news of Shekhar's ailing mother (Deepti Naval)makes them leave their perfect life in Canada and come to India. And that's when the problems start. From the moment they reach

India, both are shocked to see the pollution and the vast throngs of people everywhere. They take a crowded train to reach Shekhar's village and when they finally reach the station, they have to catch a long bus drive to his village. The filthy sweaty bus combined with the uncertain terrain makes it a never-ending drive. And unfortunately for them, a frenzied mob that beat Shekhar out of shape for no fault of his attacks their bus. Fortunately, they get shot dead just in time before they can further harm him. After that, they drive to the handing Havel where Shekhar''s father, Narsimha (Nana Patekar) lives with his wife (Deepti Naval). Nandani realized that her father-in-law is in command as soon as she enters the place, but her only solace is her mother-in-law's warm welcome.

Living there, Nandini learns of her father-in-laws tyrannical behavior and realizes that ruthless killing is a way of life for him. The day she sees her father-in-law teach her son to throw a bomb, she loses it and lashes out against him, insisting to Shekhar that they move back to Canada. But terror strikes again when Shekhar is murdered one day, leaving a broken down Nandini alone with her son in this strange land where she is harrowed by a cruel father-in-law. Her fight against this man to save her son is what makes up the climax of this emotional heart-wrenching film.

What sets apart Shakti from most films being made off late is also the rural setting of the movie. The only drawback is Ismail Darbar''s music, which fails to rise above the script. The only saving grace is the sexy item number Ishq Kameena, which has been composed by Anu Malik. Another pat for the director comes because he has extracted some splendid performances from his cast. Karisma Kapoor is the life of the film and has given a moving performance as a helpless mother. She is sure to win awards for this heated portrayal. Second is actor Nana Patekar who is back with a bang with this film. His uncouth mannerisms suit him to the hilt and he's shown his versatility once again with this role. Sanjay Kapoor is the surprise packet of the film with a sincere and effective portrayal that stands up against both the other actors. Deepti Naval too is in top form and her Pr-climax showdown with Nana is praiseworthy. Shahrukh's cameo provides the lighter moments and surely he's been pulled in to get the required star value. Though his role was not really required, he's done it well. Overall, Shakti is a far superior film than most churned out these days and the Pr-release hype is sure to get it a good opening. Shakti is sure to get the critics and audience thumps up. So what if the film needs to be desperately trimmed by at least 2 reels to better the impact. Shakti still has the power to go on without a hitch!",Positive "I have a thing for old black and white movies of this kind, movies by Will Hay and Abbot & Costello especially as those are my favourites. I picked this movie up on DVD as it was using the same idea as Will Hay's ""Oh Mr Porter"" which is one of the finest comedies ever made. I just finished watching this movie less than ten minutes ago (the movie finished at 12:45am). I find that movies of this kind, to do with Ghost Trains, etc, are best viewed at night time with the lights out. That way you get into the storyline more and night time viewing works well with this movie.

The one-liners in the movie may seem a little dated to some viewers, I guess this depends on the viewer. They are not dated to me though. I am 28 and even though I am not old enough to have been around when this movie was first released (my dad was though). I still have a lot of appreciation for some of the old movies of this kind. Sitting in the room in front of the TV with some snacks and drinks and kicking back and relaxing at night while watching these movies, not many things can beat the feeling you get while doing this. It is an escape from reality for a while.

I noticed that one of the men in the movie (he has a black mustache) he appears about three quarters of the way through the movie after his car crashes and he is looking for a woman he was followed to the station. This man was in the Will Hay classic ""The Ghost of St Michaels"" as well. Just thought I'd point that out in case no one noticed :).

The set pieces in the movie are very atmospheric. Outside the abandoned station looks good and as if there is not a soul for miles in any direction, and the inside of the station is very cosy looking away from the rain storm that is outside. I felt like I would have loved to have been there in the movie with the cast. The atmosphere in this movie is something that is missing from a lot of movies now. It keeps you hooked from the moment the movie starts till it finishes.

We need more of this type of movie in todays market. But sadly it could be over looked in favour of movies with nudity and swearing and crude humour. This sort of movie making era (The Ghost Train, Oh Mr Porter, etc) to me is the golden age of cinema!.",Positive "Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 ""Scaramouche"", the 1952 ""Prisoner of Zenda"" and the 1950 ""King Solomon's Mines""; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in ""League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version.",Negative "Being half-portuguese doesn't render me half-blind (nor half-prejudiced) when discussing portuguese films. Not that I get to do that very often anyway. But this film was such a rush of adrenaline! Yes, that's right - it was mostly accurate as far as history went/goes - but it pulled no punches on venturing beyond usual portuguese-film territory: things like using real locations in the middle of traffic-congested Lisbon and recruiting a real crowd to stand in for the real crowd of almost 30 years ago. And by God did they get it right! OK, to sum it up: very emotional if you've lived through it, but you'll spot minor improvements that could have been made as well as plot necessities that were. If you're just watching it randomly, you're in for a good historical romp, only of the very recent History kind and a bit more thought-proving than usual. Even by European standards, yes.",Positive "In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have ""The Order"", a movie that combines ""Stigmata""'s religious anti-authoritarianism, ""The X-Files""' paranormal investigation, and ""The Thorn Birds""' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted ""A Knight's Tale""), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in ""The Rules Of Attraction"").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, ""The Order"" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.",Negative "I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.

I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.

10/10",Positive "This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the "" Multiple Universe "" theory.

The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.

",Positive "Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system.

The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids… try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot.

A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions.",Positive "This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.

Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.

Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.",Negative "Sorry to say I have no idea what Hollywood is doing. Sure give us movies like Batman Begins. Oh, by the way Hollywood I think they may cover the story line in the movie Batman, but please don't entertain us what we would really want to see Batman and Superman together. I really hated this trailer because it left me wanting for more. I was looking around to see when it was coming out. It was like a terrible practical joke. The graphics where good the story line seemed solid and it had all the trappings of a great movie. Unfortunately it's not going to happen for now. To the producers, directors and all the actors great job but I hate you for doing this to me. You left me wanting more.",Positive "This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes ""The Attack of the Monolith Monsters."" This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.",Negative "Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.",Negative "William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) buy an old house where a brutal murder happened years ago in very bad condition with the intention of restoring it. They move with their daughter Sophie (Emma RidleY), and become friends of their neighbors Jean (Patricia Maynard) and George Evans (Brian Croucher). However, eerie events happen in the house, inclusive the death of Sophie's cat. In Sophie's birthday party, a pipe leaks blood and they leave the place, disclosing a secret later.

""The House That Bled to Death"" is a scary and one of the best episodes of the series ""Hammer House of Horror"". The fantastic twist, disclosing a secret, and the tragic conclusion are really excellent. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ""A Casa Que Sangrou Até Morrer"" (""The House That Bled to Death"")",Positive "Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!

This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called ""twist"" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.

Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.

I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the ""The Fugitive"" / ""In The Line of Fire"" but written by people with mental disabilities",Negative "Presque Rien' is a beautifully observed portrait of the experiences of a young French homosexual. Eschewing both stereotypes and preaching, it's a wonderfully naturalistic film, superbly acted, shot with a feel for the seaside town where the action takes place, never melodramatic but often painfully real. If anything it's almost too realistic, as there's little in the way of conventional plot, just scenes from a life. But the absence of conventional dramatic tension counts for less than it might in a world so subtly drawn. 'Presque Rien' might not be the most exciting film ever made; but its simple humanism serves it well compared with the pre-conceived celebratory or bigoted viewpoints that often mar treatments of this theme. Worth a watch.",Positive "This would've been a sure fire classic had they chosen ALMOST ANYBODY ELSE for John Abraham. This guy is an awful actor. Be it comedy, drama, tear-jerkers etc. He stinks. It seemed like at some point Priyadarshan realized this too, and pretty much had him jumping around like a monkey in order to make his solo-scenes a bit funny.

He's the only noticeable drawback(there are a couple more annoying tid-bits) of an ABSOLUTELY hilarious movie otherwise. Best comedy to come along in Bollywood since Hungama, IMO. Like Hungama, it's a situational comedy carried on the shoulders of a brilliant screenplay and of course,Akshay Kumar. This is probably his best performance to date. He better be a shoe-in for best comedian at every award function. AK's always been good at comedy, but he takes it to a different level here. The body language, the facial expressions and just the way he delivers every line. It's a genius performance. The packed theater was going nuts for pretty much the entire length of the movie and I don't think I've ever seen such an atmosphere for a Bollywood movie here in USA.

Garam Masala doesn't have one ""lead"" heroine. It stars 3 incredibly HOT+Beautiful girls who I thought did a fairly good job. Pretty sure they are all making their debuts. Paresh Rawal is solid as usual, although his routine wears itself out after a while. Rajpal Yadav is his typical annoying self(sick of his over-the-top act in every movie). Rimi Sen has nothing to do.

Overall, definitely worth a dekho. I'd say it's FUNNIER than No Entry, and that's saying a lot. Could've been even better had they chosen someone a little more competent than John Abraham.

8/10",Positive "Pretty incoherent movie about a man who belonged to and left a 1960s superficially hippie religious cult, who fights them sixteen years later. The man has a child with one of the other cultists, who during a raid by the police is hidden away, and taken by another man named Hawk who lives in a small cabin by the river. The cult kills some of its followers or some of the people in town. It's hard to keep track of who characters are, or what time period the scenes are supposed to be taking place. The leader gets paroled sixteen years later (I got that from the box - I missed the amount of time in the movie). Nobody is made to look any older, not noticeably, anyway.

One murder is done with a large circular logging saw, others are done with knives or a crossbow. I never heard the title character's name mentioned in the movie, but he's the one who overacts the most, hooting and hollering.

The movie is patched together pretty poorly, with voice-over helping (not much) to explain what is going on. Some of the sound effects were pretty bad. A man is getting punched, and we hear the sound of a whip cracking. A woman fires a gun, and we don't hear it fire, but hear a ricochet instead! It doesn't seem to have been done for comical effect.",Negative "This one is considered a key Pre-Code film – from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)! – and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.

She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day – George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor – more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!

Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no ""ball of fire"" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy – directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper – of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one – relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power – in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.

The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing – because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores her…but, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring – as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).

Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits – a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes – and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche!",Positive "There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.

The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.

The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.

Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.

Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.

None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.",Negative """Johnny Dangerously"" is a sort of hit and miss comedy that has it's laughs and ""huh?"". But I suggest to give it a chance. I think it is greatly over looked. Not too many people give this movie a chance. It does work. Just think of it as a little parody of ""Goodfellas"". Michael Keaton is very funny in his role. And he does it well. Johnny Dangerously is a gangster who wants to go higher in life. He just works his way up from the big bosses to a beautiful wife. And of course like a lot of the mob movies, someone wants him dead. 90% of the jokes get a laugh. Like, I said give it a chance. Just take your favortie gangster movies and mix a comedy in. You have ""Johnny Dangerously"".

7/10",Positive "I came across An Insomniac's Nightmare while looking for offbeat independent films, and glad to say it did NOT disappoint. This crazy half hour ride had me wondering all the way through, and the ending was excellent - one of those NOOOOO moments that really stays with you. I've shown it to a number of people and everyone seems to agree hands down. The little ghostie girl was very talented and I think her performance stole the show. She creeped the heck out of me, I can say that much. Nanavati did a great job putting this short together. All the pieces just fell into place and you can tell that she's a great writer from what she did with this script. SO well written. It's undoubtedly the strongest part of the film. The directing was great and the acting was enjoyable, but the most important factor here is the strength of the screenplay. Good job to this girl, I can't wait to see more!",Positive "There are two points I need to make clear right at the beginning. First of all we all know what this year's Oscar's were REALLY all about this year. It was the Academy's way of showing people that they are no racist,and never have been. They wanted to clear all preconceived notions about themselves. Secondly, it's kinda pointless to make remarks about the show, because really, what difference will it make? But, it's fun to write about it. This is the year I became fed-up with the Oscar's! I will never watch the show again. Every year they do something wrong. Before Crowe wins for ""Gladaitor"" when they real winner should of been Ralph Fiennes for ""Sunshine"". If you haven't seen this movie yet, watch it and you'll agree. ""Eyes Wide Shut"" when released receieved no nominations. And as far as this year goes, well, the bad choices were all over the place! Baz Lurhmann gets no ""Best Director"" nomination! Are you joking!! ""A Beautiful Mind"" is up for ""Best Make-up""???? ""Training Day"" gets nominated?? The movie was awful, and it seemed like Washington didn't even turn in a performance, all he proved was, he knows how to use four letter words! That's what h won the award for! Take away the language and I bet he was almost playing himself! I liked ""Gosford Park"", I really did, but why 7 nominations? And how on Earth could they not give it too Altman! I mean, c'mon, if there just giving the award to people to clear up any bad feelings, what about Altman? The man has been in the public's eye for 32 years now and no Oscar! There were many, many things that bothered me about this year's Oscar's, but, I'll live with it, as long as I never have to watch another show again! The highpoint ( and the ONLY one) of the show was when Woody Allen made his first appearance ever to the award show. That will go down as one of the greatest moments in he history of the show.",Negative Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!,Negative "I don't know what you guys are talking about, the first time I watched this movie with two of my friends we couldn't stop crying. This is one of the funniest shits I've ever seen. That comment about the porn is so right though hahahaha.

Yeah this movie actually is the worse, but it did bring tears to my eyes due to the phony characters, poor dialog and acting. Not to mention the expensive cameras they used to film it?! It looks like one of those movies out of my drivers ed. class. The props look like they came out of a high school drama show. The music sounds like it is from an original Nintendo system game. The only thing that even came close the scaring me about this movie was that it had a killer clown which, who isn't creeped out by fat, lurking clowns? hahaha if someone were to ever watch this though, they need to look out for the actors verbal errors like lisping on words and some of their facial expressions. hahahaha I died.

SUSAN",Negative "I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.

I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors – never!

He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word ""art"" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.

Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?

He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.

Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.",Negative "I don't normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films I don't like, but in a case like this one, I just have to say something. This movie is terrible, illogical, and stupid. There are so many flaws in the storytelling that I don't even feel obliged to elaborate on because it's time for me to move on from this experience. The most annoying point is, however, that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for Bacon's character's madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition.

Granted the special effects are impressive, and in the past Paul Verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director's cut of Robocop on DVD is great). However, this movie is stupid and generally doesn't come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter, and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment.

In short, as many other reviews here say (wish I had read them before...) - Stay away from this film!",Negative My Favorite part was when the credits started to roll. I wish I could give it a .0000000000001 out of 10. I really wish I had that Hour and thirty minutes back. Don't waste your money or time on it. I really could have watched grass grow and felt better after wards.

Nadia was really pretty and I hope the movie didn't destroy her career. But she chose to be in it.

All in all it sucked more than any other movie has sucked. More than Kazaam and Glitter combined. That's saying something.

Don't

Do

it!!!!,Negative "Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.",Negative "So what's the big fuss out of making an INDIANA JONES wannabe when you have an actor who's cast as a fictional dude from adventure storybooks who doesn't want to go out on an adventure??? Whoever wrote the script for JAKE SPEED was probably fired, but for whatever reasons possible, this movie greatly lacks in excitement! That doesn't mean it has no action, but look on the dark side of the picture. This has got to bare no resemblance to INDIANA JONES or other action-adventure thrills containing cliffhangers and narrow escapes, and JAKE SPEED was promoted that way using clever propaganda to make me and several others interested in it! Besides, I've never heard of the guy, so who needs his attention?",Negative "This low budget B horror's plot comes with all the amenities - mad scientist complete with sidekick, malicious corporate greed of pharmaceutical industry, eccentric and extreme genetic engineering, and information technology....can't leave that out.

Start with strange sequence of hot looking nameless boaters that foolishly decide to take a dip in the waters near an uncharted island and end up chum for swarming hammerhead sharks.....

Cut to weak back story implying the stock decline of a generic pharma corporation which motivates its wicked Shakespeare quoting CEO to entertain an un-solicited offer made by a former employee/scientist that was jilted out of his job as head of research and who also happens to be a nut...of course (total Herbert West wannabe). He is offering up a new stem cell technology that could make tons o' cash...or so it seems...This lures in several employees to his Moreau-ish island (must have been quite an impressive exit package from the company when he was let go for him to afford an island) to validate his scientific findings including the CEO and, co-incidentally, the ex-fiancé of the mad scientist's son now morphed sharkuman (how convenient)....

The plan, sort of, is to rekindle lost love between the former nuptials while exacting revenge on the former colleagues for his termination. (Sheez, how can this guy be bitter? He has his own friggen' island after all...).

Soon, everyone is on the run (from endless supply of security guards toting heavy weaponry, from mutant plants – can there be an uncharted island without man-eating plants?, from sharky son's appetite for carnage, from quack daddy's breeding plans, and from lack of a cell phone signal)...and they all must learn to work together to get off the island alive!

Will anyone escape? Will a new species be created? Watch it and find out.

There is some entertainment value in this movie, but don't expect much...for the true Combs fan, this is not to be missed.

Don't say I didn't warn you.",Negative "There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.

Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...

As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.

5/10.",Negative "... This isn't the first time Stanley blurred the distinction between genres to such great effect, either. In Dr. Strangelove you had a comedy about a horrific situation, and here the basis is a terrifying scenario which actually yields some very funny moments. Slow-burning madness and attempting to kill one's family isn't hilarious of course, but the dialogue is very knowing (""five months of peace is just what I want... "") and there is a terrific drinking scene which would be riotous if you included just one type of spirit, but is spine-chilling when you factor in the other.

I disagree with those who say that the hotel has a negligible effect on Jack Torrance in the filmed version. The cues Nicholson provides the audience as an actor merely hint at the potential for madness, which is only reinforced when we learn that the head of the family has struggled with alcoholism and is emotionally distant from his wife and son. The environment that he is in, however, then absorbs those personality defects and unleashes them upon his consciousness. In much the same way as buildings are sometimes thought to soak up events that happen there, the hotel feeds on the frailties of a troubled but sane man, and uses his weaknesses against him to eventually take him beyond the point of no return. He may have dormant flaws in his personality before he arrives, but to me the Overlook itself is the trigger that sets them off.

Kubrick's cold and detached approach to directing works splendidly for a chilly horror film, and the unpredictable force of nature that is Jack Nicholson teeters all the time between making you giggle and scaring the wits out of you. When he explodes, you won't be sure how far he can go. Together they made a great team and with a blend of their talents gave us a classic. If you want a great viewing experience, then this is an example that well and truly shines...",Positive "*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the ""fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.",Negative "I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.",Positive "Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.

While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.

It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.

Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.

The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.",Negative "Cradle of Fear

This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as ""a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror"".

This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge.

The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play.

As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.

What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, ""Did I just see what I thought I did"", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.

Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the ""Sick Room"", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.",Negative "I don't see how this show is like the OC at all.

First of all, the OC centers around teenagers and their parents trying to get through life. North Shore is about a hotel staff who is trying to run the hotel and have a social life at the same time. Second, The OC takes place in California. North Shore takes place in Hawaii.

And why would Fox make a show just like one of its other shows on the same network? I think this is a great show with good actors for the most part. It has a good storyline and plot. I like the events that happen and how the people take care of them and work them out. The most recent episode was surprising how the story worked out. It wasn't predictable like most stories on most shows.

I hope Fox keeps it on the air.",Positive "The name ""cult movie"" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.

Despite the ""Superwoman"" connotation, ""Superchick"" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.

Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.",Negative """The Triumph of Love"" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.

Maybe it all got lost in the translation.",Negative "I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.",Negative "terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion",Positive "Story of a wrongly executed prisoner who haunts the prison he was electrocuted in and kills random prisoners while waiting to take revenge on the man who framed him.

Viggo Mortensen is great, and the acting is pretty good overall. Lane Smith is deliciously wicked as the guilty warden. Also, this film has some great gore, including death by barbed-wire mummification.",Positive "I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.

The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't ""hang together,"" perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.

It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think ""Lucky Julien!"" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a ""bad thing,"" all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.",Positive "I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film.

The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story.

The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons.",Positive "In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a ""10"" in my collection of films.",Positive "If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney ""classics"" because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement!",Positive "It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, ""HOLLOW MAN"" is a remake of sorts of ""THE INVISIBLE MAN"", but that's where the similarities end. ""HOLLOW MAN"" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but ""HOLLOW MAN"" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of ""ALIEN"" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some ""body reconstitution"" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on ""FEAR DOT COM"" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or ""Sasquatsh"", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is ""hollow""! 8* out of 10*!",Positive "Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.

The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.

Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.

For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.

In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.

Short haul fun.",Positive "Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.

The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like ""Gloria F*CKING Swanson!""). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.

In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.

'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes.",Positive "When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.

When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.

All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.

It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.

Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.",Negative "BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun.",Positive "

So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.

The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.",Positive "Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10.",Positive "Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. ""Tarzan, the Ape Man"" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!",Positive "The cover art (which features a man holding a scary pellet gun) would make it seem as if it's a martial arts film. (Hardly.)

I find it interesting that the film's real title is Trojan Warrior. (Trojan is a brand of condoms in the US) This movie is loaded with homoeroticism. If you like that stuff, then this film isn't that bad really. However, consider these points:

There are numerous close-ups of actors' groins & butts, (One scene even features every actor with an erection bulging in his pants.) the film is also bathed in gaudy colors like lime, peach, and red. From a cinematographer's standpoint, this movie's a drag queen! Several scenes feature characters standing EXTREMELY close to one another, occasionally touching as they converse. Also, the cousin of the hero likes women, and every other guy in the movie is trying to kill him. Is there a message here the filmmakers want to convey?

Shall I go into the fight scenes? (Yes, someone's private parts get grabbed in one fight.) The martial arts scenes are brief and unimaginative. No fancy stuff here, just your standard moves you'd see in an old Chuck Norris flick. There's also a car chase scene which may be the first ever LOW-speed chase put on film.",Negative "I just watched this for the first time in a long time - I had forgotten both how imaginative the images were, and how witty the movie is. I had not forgotten however the opening scenes which are (with the scene at the Candlelight Club in Waterloo Bridge) among the most romantic ever filmed.

Anyone interested in politics or history will love the movie's offhand references - anyone interested in romance will be moved by Hunter-Niven, and anyone who loves visual imagery will enjoy the depiction of the afterworld.

My favorite movie remains ""Odd Man Out"" made near the same time - but this one is superb.

",Positive "Four macho rough'n'tumble guys and three sexy gals venture into a remote woodland area to hunt for a bear. The motley coed group runs afoul of crazed Vietnam veteran Jesse (an effectively creepy portrayal by Alberto Mejia Baron), who not surprisingly doesn't take kindly to any strangers trespassing on his terrain. Director/co-writer Pedro Galindo III relates the gripping story at a steady pace, creates a good deal of nerve-rattling tension, and delivers a fair amount of graphic gore with the brutal murder set pieces (a nasty throat slicing and a hand being blown off with a shotgun rate as the definite gruesome splatter highlights). The capable cast all give solid performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Pedro Fernandez as the nice, humane Nacho, Edith Gonzalez as the feisty Alejandra, Charly Valentino as the amiable Charly, and Tono Mauri as antagonistic jerk Mauricio. Better still, both yummy blonde Marisol Santacruz and lovely brunette Adriana Vega supply some tasty eye candy by wearing skimpy bathing suits. Antonio de Anda's slick, agile cinematography, the breathtaking sylvan scenery, Pedro Plascencia's robust, shuddery, stirring score, the well-developed characters, and the pleasingly tight'n'trim 76 minute running time further enhance the overall sound quality of this bang-up horror/action hybrid winner.",Positive "Who would think Andy Griffith's ""Helen Crump"" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that ""Steve"" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!

The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the ""adult"" supporting cast probably says ""Kids!"" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated ""grown ups only"" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer",Positive "The music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.

I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.

I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.

See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener.",Positive "David Lynch's (1999) film of John Roach / Mary Sweeney's story is set in Iowa and Wisconsin some time well before the film's eventual release.

We come into the life of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) late on in life. His medical condition is poor, his life is mostly behind him and he knows it.

This makes what he decides to do, even more remarkable and endearing. He decides (and at every point in the film his own name reverberates through his actions) to put a few things straight.

Alvin is, by this time in his life, a man of great experience but modest means. His daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek) struggles with a speech impediment that makes communication a great effort on the audience's behalf. But it's worth it, because Rose's story cannot help but come out as the film progresses.

This film is the story of a journey. But like all journeys it is a journey in the geographical sense and in the human sense. Early on in the film, we begin to understand that this is an ambitious journey, which no elderly gentleman of Alvin's age should reasonably undertake.

But along the way, we slowly learn how Alvin has so many qualifications which equip him to achieve his unlikely objective. His objective is very simple and straightforward. His brother is ill and likely to die and he wants to visit him. He has had a falling out with him many years ago and they have not spoken in a very long time.

Along the way, Alvin meets many people. The way he behaves towards them and the benefit they get from having known him is the essence of this film. We come to know who Alvin Straight is, from what Alvin Straight does. And at the end of the film, we know who we are .. better.",Positive "Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.

Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup – there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.

On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say ""They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness""? (what credibility? - Ed note.)

The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.

John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.

The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the ""fourth wall"" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well…). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters – but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush – anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles.

While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office.

Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints…

So enjoy this diversion for what it is – a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved – interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)",Negative "DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.",Negative "No? Didn't think so! Well, in that case all you have to do is stay far, far away from ""Do You Wanna Know A Secret"", as it's just the umpteenth pointless post-""Scream"" slasher with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. The plot is extremely ridiculous; the characters are insufferably dumb, the gore-factor is negligible and the whole thing is just plain boring! As you can derive from the title already, this film is mainly inspired by ""I Still Know What You Did Last Summer"", as the events take place in a similar setting and the killer's motivations are equally stupid. Why anyone would want to steal ideas from junk like ""IKWYDLS"" is a complete mystery to me, anyway. At least that film could depend on the precious rack of Jennifer Love Hewitt, whereas the girls in this junk are, apart from brainless, also terribly unattractive. One year after the still unsolved murder of her boyfriend, Beth Morgan, her new adulterous lover and four other simple-minded college students go to Florida to spend their Spring Break holiday in a fancy beach house. The killer hasn't made a move all year, but now he follows the posse to Florida and starts butchering them whilst leaving behind the titular message as some sort of business card. You really don't need to be a horror-expert in order to quickly figure out which face hides behind the unspeakably ridiculous mask and the writers' attempts to put you on the wrong track are downright embarrassing. Since the plot is so thin, most of the film is purely irrelevant padding, including the sub plots regarding the incompetent Floridian police force and the 'mysterious' FBI inspector who seems to have a personal score to settle. The murder inexplicably happen off screen (don't you hate it when that happens?), there isn't even any gratuitous T&A to enjoy and you better don't get me started on the quality of the dialogs. Suffering through crap like this only makes you realize that the delightful spirit of the 80's slashers is gone for good.",Negative "Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the ""film makers were then attacked"" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.

Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by ""the film makers were attacked"" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said ""Someone should beat those two kids up."" The picture on the cover, ""the chase"" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.

I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's ""Roger & Me"", but if ""Roger & Me"" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, ""Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah"", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.

Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, ""HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!"".

Morgan ""Please Like Me"" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.

Avoid like the plague.",Negative "I had the pleasure of viewing this beautiful film last night, with the wonderful addition of a question and answer session with the director following the viewing. I suspect that the first commenter has never lost a parent or someone very close to them in death. I have had many such losses, and this movie spoke to me. One of the major themes is how we don't deal with questions/issues/stories with our loved ones until it's too late--they're too incapacitated or dead before that happens. Talk to your loved ones, listen to and record their stories, tell people you love them, resolve differences. I loved the message that there are no mistakes. I love the director's portrayal of the relationship of the two daughters--as one of six siblings, it's clear to me he understood how complex those relationships are. His history as a cinematographer also comes through loud and clear--what a beautiful movie! The casting is outstanding--a film not to be missed!",Positive "The best Modesty Blaise movie I have seen so far. It's like a good pilot for a TV-series. I even think it's a little bit ""cult"", like with a lite touch of Quentin Tarantino's magic, or something. They have caught a great deal of Modesty's character, but I admit missing Willy Garwin a bit. Even if i have read many comics and book by Peter O'donnell I'm not disappointed of this film, quite the opposite. Positive surprised of this story about Modesty and her childhood. I did not put my expectations so high, because of the bad movie from 1966. So I may have overrate this movie just a little. But if you like the comics and other storys about Modesty Blaise, you should definitely see this one! can't wait for a follow-up...",Positive "I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!",Negative "The pilot of Enterprise has one thing that has been lacking since the original Star Trek: A dose of realistic, flawed personalities. The Utopian characters of the Next Generation got tiring, they were so noble as to be unbelievable. I also like the sub-plot that humans are bitter toward the Vulcans. Its funny seeing them as pretentious snobs. It makes me look forward to seeing when the humans become the dominant race between the two, though I don't think it would work in the time frame of the show. The only negatives that jumped out at me were the ""quick cut off the ending at 2 hours"" feel of the end, which is common among many of the Trek shows. The second was the shameless dig for ratings by a couple of senselessly sexy scenes. It was out of place, a good science fiction show should be able to stand on its own without trying to pad the pre-teen audience with some skin. But its not my job to make the show profitable, so oh well.

Lets see how the next episode does.",Positive "This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!",Negative "Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.",Positive "Colleges, High Schools, Fraternities and Sororities have been the most popular stalking grounds for maniacal madmen since the slasher cycle first became a popular cinema culture throughout the late seventies. Even backwoods cabins and campsites have rode shotgun to the amount of massacres that have taken place on campuses since Halloween categorised the genre as a cult horror category. From early entries like To all a Good Night right up until the big budgeted schlock of titles like Urban Legend or Schools Out, there's usually always been a campus slasher lurking somewhere in the pipeline. Despite being picked up by Troma - the titans of B movie badness – Splatter University was heavily panned upon release and never really found an audience. Even notorious hack and slash websites like HYSTERIA-LIVES have written off Richard Haines' splatter yarn as one of the worst of the early eighties boom. I always approach criticised movies optimistically because there's often the chance than a few bad reviews can be unfairly contagious like a dose of the flu, which crowds the judgement of certain authors.

It begins in traditional fashion at the place where any maniac worth his salts emerges. Yep you guessed it – an insane asylum! It seems that one of the inmates has decided that he's unhappy with the level of service at the institution and therefore he's looking to take his business elsewhere. The unseen nut-job makes his break after stabbing an unfortunate orderly where the sun certainly doesn't shine. He obviously favours the dress sense of the murdered worker, so he takes the liberty of borrowing his uniform, blood stained trousers and all!

Three years later, we transfer to St Trinians College, an educational establishment that is controlled by catholic priests. A teacher is busy after hours marking her students work when all of a sudden there's a knock at the door. Before she has a chance to find out what the unseen visitor wants, he stabs her in the chest with a kitchen knife and she falls to the floor in a bloody heap. This of course means that there's a vacancy at the university and so we're introduced to Julie Parker (Francine Forbes), the lovable replacement for the recently departed lecturer. It seems that her arrival has inadvertently given the resident maniac all the motivation that he needs to go on a no holds barred slaughter-thon. Before long students and teachers alike are dropping like flies to the camera shy menace as he stalks the corridors and local areas armed with an exceptionally large blade. Suspicious suspects abound, but can professor Parker solve the mystery of the campus murderer before she becomes just another statistic?

I'm not precisely sure how many versions of this movie are available. The UK altered video was released under the alias of Campus Killings, but the US copy that I own states that it's the complete unedited edition, which could mean that there is a censored print floating about somewhere? I'd be fairly surprised if that was the case as Splatter University certainly isn't as gore-delicious as the hyperbole packaging would lead you to believe. One or two litres of corn syrup certainly don't stand up to gore hound's scrutiny when compared to the likes of Blood Rage or Pieces, so in this instance the movie is somewhat over hyped. One thing that many critics have failed to mention is the charming lead performance from Francine Forbes, who ends up carrying the entire picture on her shoulders throughout the 79-minute running time. Despite amateurish direction from Richard Haines she still unveils some magnificent potential that should have lead to the chance of another stab at serious acting under a more accomplished helmer. Unfortunately that possibility never came, and bottom of the barrel bombs like Death Ring and Splitz certainly didn't help to nurture a talent that could have improved dramatically under the right scholarship.

The rest of the cast members were par for the course of movie obscurity, especially the wooden plank teenagers who for some strange reason acted like they were auditioning for a remake of Grease or The Wanderers. The bog standard point and shoot direction couldn't have helped to build much confidence in the project and the fact that the few signs of potential were undermined by the clumsy handling of the script writer left the feature effectively unredeemable. Perhaps the only claim of originality to be found in Haines' slasher is the brave attempt for the contrasting conclusion. Let's just say that it's not a final that I was expecting to witness in a movie that was so typical of the cycle.

At one point in the runtime, one of the teens says, ""Man that Parker bores me to tears…"" Well the same can be said for Splatter University, which never lifts the pace above slow motion. With that said though, Francine Forbes made for a delectable scream queen and undoubtedly one that I would have paid to watch again in a similar role. So that pretty much sums up this un-troma-tising ride. Slow paced, shoddy but still strangely alluring; you'd have to be especially forgiving to give it a chance…",Negative "Spielberg's first dramatic film is no let-down. It's a beautifully made film without any flaws about the life of an African-American woman. It also proves that not all movies that have the African-American ethnicity as the center of the story have to be helmed by an African-American director.

What I love about this movie is Spielberg's ability to make it very realistic despite the fact that it was based on a book. Furthermore, Danny Glover was excellent as Mr. And usually, he's just himself throughout most of his movies. But in this, he completely branches out and is someone else for once. But, the performance de resistance of the whole film comes from Whoopi Goldberg. She is excellent as Celie. You will never forget these characters once you've seen this movie.

Now, I heard that the musical version of it is going to be a film as well, and all I can say is: I hope it's about as good as this one is, because this one is a film that shouldn't be missed.",Positive "This movie is without a doubt a perfect 10/10.. for all you people out there who are rating this film low grades because it has no ""good plot"" or anything like that, thats ridiculous, saying that a Jackie Chan movie is bad because of its plot is like saying a porn movie is bad because it has no plot! you watch Jackie Chan FOR THE FIGHT SCENES, for the action its not so much concentrated on a good story or anything like that, if you look at how he makes movies and compare it to other American films from that era and even later you will realize that Jackie Chan's movies had over the top fights scenes and not really good plots while American movies had good plots but shitty action scenes compared to what Jackie Chan was doing at the time. Porn is watched for the porn, Jackie Chan is watched for the ACTION, i think you people are rating it bad because there's no plot because you think thats how a smart movie critic would rate a good movie but the way i see it is a good movie is a movie that can keep me entertained. Sure the middle of the movie was boring, VERY BORING, but put it this way the rest which is all action scenes and stunts very much do pay for all of that. This did change the way how American action movies were created, they have even stollen scenes from this movie. If you want a true man, a true entertainer then watch this movie and many more of Jackie Chan's, hes pure in everyway. He literally makes American movies look like a walk in the park, and even in TODAYS movies. American movies rely so much on special effects and safety wires and stunt doubles and so much more. Police Story and many other Jackie Chan films are pieces of work of a true entertainer who just goes all out and is very talented in what he can do. a masterpiece",Positive "As Dr. Alan Feinstone, Corbin Bernsen turns a marvelously deranged performance in ""The Dentist"".

With his already obsessive compulsive tendencies in high gear, the IRS hounding him, and a very suspicious acting wife; Dr. Alan Feinstone is losing his sanity more and more each day.

When the Doc indeed does realize that his wife is having an affair with the local pool boy, it sets off a string of events that lead to torture, murder, ant total mayhem! ""The Dentist"" is a solid film! Bernsen makes the character of Dr. Feinstone relatable and hateable at the same time. Even though he is completely out of his gourd, the audience will still feel sympathy towards him. That my friends.....is damn good acting.

A nice solid cast of supporting actors round out this gem of a film. Excellent direction, good killings and gore, and effective pacing will keep you entertained throughout the movies run.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!",Positive "The minute I started watching this I realised that I was watching a quality production so I was not surprised to find that the screenplay was written by Andrew Davis and was produced by Sue Birtwhistle both of these brought us the excellent 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice! So my only gripe here is that Emma did not run to 3 or 4 or maybe even six episodes like Pride and Prejudice. The acting was superb with I think Prunella scales excellent as Miss Bates but I loved Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong just as much. The language is a delight to listen to, can you imagine in this day and age having a right go at someone without actually uttering a swear word? Samantha Morton was excellent as Miss Smith in fact the casting was spot on much as it was with Pride and Prejudice. I liked it so much that I watched it twice in two days!! So once again thank you BBC for another quality piece of television. I have seen the Paltrow version and it is okay but I do think the BBC version is far superior. An excellent production that I am very happy to own on DVD!!!",Positive "Just read the original story which is written by Pu in 18th century. Strikingly, the movie despict the original spirit very well, though the plot was modified tremendously. The film language, the rhythm, the special effect are all from hollywood, but still there is a chinese core. It is amazing how Hark Tsui managed to combine them together. The result is pure beauty.",Positive I saw this film by chance on the small box. It has a fantastic and chilling scene about poisonous gas. A lot about fanatical patriotism. A bit of eroticism. I can't believe it's still waiting for 5 votes!!,Positive "I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could ""Hollywood"" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film.",Positive "No, this isn't a sequel to the fabulous OVA series, but rather a remake of the events that occurred after the death of Ghim (and the disappearance of Woodchuck). It is also more accurate to the novels that inspired this wonderful series, which is why characters (namely Orson and Shiris) are reintroduced, and why the story may seem slightly different to those used to the OVA. (The booklet included in the set provides excellent answers to such questions, as do various online sites.) The first eight episodes of this 27-part TV series focus on the fateful battle at Demon Dragon Mountain. The remaining 19 episodes introduce us to Spark, a blue-haired knight wannabe who identifies with Parn, and his ragtag team of misfits as they attempt to stop the Dark Wizard Wagnard from resurrecting Kardis the Destroyer.

While it isn't quite the equivalent of the original LODOSS WAR (we all love the finale where Parn saves Deedlit from Wagnard, don't we?), this TV follow-up is still great fun for fantasy fans. Even if the animation is limited (and a step down from the artistic streak of the first LODOSS), this 27-part series has its elements of appeal. The fully-realized characters, engaging storyline, magic, romance, and a superb soundtrack scored by Kaoru Wada of NINJA SCROLL, all give this uneven spin-off some punch.

While the OVA dub of LODOSS has been criticized for one reason or another, I generally liked it and still consider it one of my favorite dubs. So I had significant hopes for the dub for CHRONICLES, made in 1999-2000. For the most part, the LODOSS TV English track is of passable (if not stellar) quality; it does, however, have its share of problems. Much of the original cast who lent their English voices to the characters of LODOSS return (including Lisa Ortiz as Deedlit!), which is a nice bonus. On the other hand, Billy Regan's more mature sounding Parn is a bit offputting. He doesn't do a bad job, but his voice came across as grating for the first eight episodes (causing some anti-dub fans to instantly diss the dub), but by the time Spark and company take the stage, I found it less bothersome. (I don't know if it's because he improved or if it just grew on me.) Also, not everyone from the OAV dub returns. Jayce Reeves only voices Wagnard (terrifically) for one episode; he's replaced by Pete Zarustica for the whole show, who gives a scratchy, but still malevolent turn (as well as the expected evil laughter). Anthony Cruise's Kashue, on the other hand, is too weary and takes about five or so episodes to find his stride. Oliver Gregory is probably the most effective as Orson, especially during his final dramatic scenes.

Aside from Lisa Ortiz (Deedlit), Karen Smith (Shiris), John Knox (Ashram), and Al Muscari (Slayn), the dub's best voices come from some of the newer characters, including Crispin Freeman (Spark, Maar, Garrack -episodes 16-27-), Roxanne Beck (Little Neese), Meg Frances (who voices Pirotess in the OAV but also voices Ryna with vulnerability and sassiness as well as Karla) and especially Angora Deb (who steals every scene she's in as Leaf the Half-Elf). The rest of the cast isn't terrible by any means, but a little more uneven than the OAV dub. Some are all right (Aldonova, Greevus) while others are lackluster (Hobb, palace guards, dragons, etc.) and few were awful (in particular, Prince Reona's VA is too harsh and monotone for a fighter of justice).

In fact the lack of aural continuity (some cast members get new voices for some unexplained reason by the time we get to some of the later episodes) is one of the problems of the dub. Others include less memorable and more awkward sounding dialogue, uneven synchronization, and finally (I apologize in advance to the fans of this) the LODOSS ISLAND segments. These offbeat, super-deformed interludes at the end of each episode will either amuse or drive you batty. Admittingly, I at first found them to be a major nuisance, but they sorta grew on me after a while. (Besides, there are some showstoppingly hilarious lines such as ""I'm King Kashue, and this is my CASHEW! I'm REALLY quite a nut!"") These flaws rank the dub for CHRONICLES just a notch just below that for the OVA, resulting in an uneven English track summed up best as ""OK"".

If one wonders if the Japanese language track is the preferred listening choice, well, guess what? The Japanese version has its good and bad points, too. While some voices are less annoying than the English language track, I found others to be less appealing than the English equivalents (in particular, the actress who does Deedlit is nowhere nearly as good as Lisa Ortiz OR Yumi Tohma). Plus, I should mention that the Japanese cast is NOT THE SAME AS THE OVA. Because the series was made seven years after the original, all but one (Sho Hayami) of the cast members are replaced by new ones. Although they do a respectably good job, it may be a major annoyance for those who were used to the Japanese OVA cast. Shows that not everything in Japanese is better than English, eh? Despite its flaws, CHRONICLES OF THE HEROIC KNIGHT is still a fine series which deserves to hold its own ground. Its not without its rough spots and doesn't always live up to its predecessor, yet there's enough good points to counter the bad, making this a moderately enjoyable fantasy Anime.",Positive "That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot.

What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong.

I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.",Negative "Dolph Lundgren broods and scowls his way through this incoherent mystery/thriller that's not nearly as cool as the box would have you believe. He is actually quite good here, but the story is a mess of B-movie cliches (detectives, revenge, tycoons, hookers, S&M) that looks like it was made up as they went along. The film picks up a bit in the second half but for a more decent Lundgren flick, rent RED SCORPION instead.",Negative "It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.

To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.

And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.

Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.

And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.

Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.

And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.

And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, ""The bullet will take his memory away."" Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.

Seriously, this was ""Daredevil"" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.",Negative "I ran across this movie on the tv and could not turn it off. Peter Sellers plays an unlikable fellow who falls for an extremely warm and cute Goldie Hawn (who wouldn't?). The way that Goldie's character holds herself from the beginning of the movie to the end is untraditional even today. This movie gave me a different angle into human relations and also I found it very funny. Peter Sellers role was a difficult sell, but I think he pulls it off well.",Positive "The Radar Men from the Moon is a pretty typical fare of 1950's serials. The special effects are pretty cheap, the lunar rovers are obviously World War II surplus jeeps with painted plywood over them, and the like. The acting is only so-so. It does inspire the imagination of children, to whom I believe this was directed to. By today's standards, it's boring, cheap, and bad. There's also a hefty amount of stock footage in the first 9 episodes of natural disasters.",Negative "First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.

I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!

The real ""Crime"" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!",Negative "I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats!",Positive "Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey)

International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.

You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.

""It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare."" - Officer (Brian Currie)",Negative "This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh.",Negative "This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs ""Sini Ne"" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.",Negative "In the year 1990, the world of Disney TV cartoons was certainly at it's prime. Shows like Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, DuckTales and Gummi Bears was already popular, and now Disney made another great cartoon and that cartoon brought the birth of the Disney Afternoon. That cartoon is called TaleSpin. It's about old Jungle Book character Baloo the Bear as he gets a job in the plane business. In the series he meets Kit Cloudkicker, former Air Pirate and good cloud surfer, business lady Rebecca Cunningham and her hyperactive daughter Molly. This series is very funny and has tons of great puns that you may not understand as a kid but understand later on in life. This is one cleverly written series and it's great to add to your DVD collection. Parents, buy this for your kids rather letting them watch all of those horrible Nickelodeon cartoons. If you liked TaleSpin, then check out ""Darkwing Duck"" and ""Goof Troop"". Spin it!",Positive "One of the great mysteries of life, suffered from daily, is why nice girls so often are more interested in the jerks and heels than in the nice guys.

Worse, when the nice guys even want to marry those girls, the girls STILL prefer the jerks and heels, even after the jerks and heels have shown their contempt, have shown they're just interested in using the girls.

Stu Erwin is the nice guy, who continues to be nice after being lied to and cheated and even after losing the girl completely.

Clark Gable is the jerk, and he is perfect in the role, rather a sad note to his fans.

Jean Harlow comes across as a more slender Mae West, even sounding like La West in some of her cynical throwaway lines.

Somewhat puzzling is that so many of the other characters, intended to be bad guys -- I mean, heck, they're locked up, so they must be -- are so obviously nice people.

In fact, there are lots of nice people here, people who, in a lesser film or story, would be snarling and back-stabbing but here go out of their way to help someone else.

So, maybe the story is rather clichéd, at least by modern standards, but ultimately the viewer will be glad to have watched.

The biggest complaint I have is that so many really good actors are not given credit. Once again, we can say a fervent ""Thank You"" to IMDb.com.",Positive "I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.

John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.

Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84"" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.",Negative "I was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. ""Six Men Getting Sick"" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work ""The Grandmother"" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. ""The Alpahabet"" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) ""The Amputee"" is pointless. ""The Cowboy and the Frenchman"" is just plain silly. ""Lumiere"" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.",Negative "This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!",Negative "most of the bad reviews on this website blame ""Hood of the Living Dead"" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as ""Hood of the Living Dead"" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in ""Hammerhead"" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, ""Hood of the Living Dead"" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see ""Blair Witch Project"", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than ""Hood of the Living Dead"" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of ""Lonelygirl15"", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that ""Hood of the Living Dead"" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend ""Zombiez"", ""The Ghosts of Edendale"", ""The Killer Eye"", ""Monster Man"", ""Don't Look in the Basement"", ""The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made"", ""Redneck Zombies"", ""Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer"" and ""Habit"".",Positive "Now, for all of the cinematographical buffs out there, this film may not rank high on your list of things to see. But if you know anything about plot development, profound truth, and the intentions that this film (the series) had, you'd understand my p.o.v.

Granted, the specifics of the film are renderings of the writer, who cannot be expected to know what will happen in the end. But the film is biblically accurate and justifiably ""scares"" viewers into thinking about what may be. I'm a Christian, not due to this movie, but due to my personal decision to accept Jesus as my Savior. The film and potential that something similar to the circumstances portrayed therein can remarkably scare someone into thinking about their actions and decisions. It's not some cheap attempt to scare people into believing in God, but rather, a means to get your attention.

As a Christian, I know I'll not be left behind, and thanks to movies like this, I can look beyond the superficialities of entertainment, acting, and film budgeting to appreciate the depth that the film has to offer. This is a movie you shouldn't not only see, but feel with your heart and soul.",Positive "When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not.

The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.

""But its a comedy "" some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ?

""Its not about the plot , its about the laughs"" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more.

If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.",Negative "I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).

The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.

Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.

Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's ""not coming back"" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.

I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.",Negative "I thought this was an utterly charming film. The story seems to be a thinly veiled autobiography of John Waters: Pecker's greatest gift is his ability to find beauty in unexpected places. Edward Furlong does well in the lead, but the best performances are by his grandmother, Mink Stole (a hilarious cameo) and, of all people, Patty Hearst. I think the reviewers are way off base on this one. They seem to be taking Pecker's worst valuation of his work as gospel, when I think the film pretty clearly states that he is indeed a promising artist.",Positive "There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and ""angry"" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.

Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called ""Honor,"" but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.

Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.",Negative "Have not seen this 1958 film in a very long time and greatly enjoyed Kim Novak playing the role as Gil Holroyd who is an actual witch and has an aunt named Queenie Holroyd who is also a witch and Gillian also has a brother warlock named Nick played by Jack Lemmon. When Gillian sets her eyes on Shep Henderson,(James Stewart) who is engaged to a girl he is going to marry; Gillian performers some magic spells with a cat and changes his mind about his intended bride and then becomes very lust full and falls in love with Gillian. The story tells that a real witch cannot fall in love, blush or cry and this begins to prove a big problem between Shep and Gillian, so Nick and Aunt Queenie decided they have to do something about this situation. Great film to view over and over again and a great classic film from 1958.",Positive "George Lopez never caught my interest in his stand up comedy and he still doesn't. But this show is a work of art. It's not ever show where the jokes keep you laughing every time you remember it (and jokes that re memorable at that). This show just has an upbeat look to it and the characters range from an old, short drunk to an dyslexic teenager. I don't know who writes this show but that person does a great job. If they had just continued the show I'm sure that it would get a positive response from the critics of this great country. If you are looking for a good, traditional comedy, then George Lopez is the show for you! The one bad thing is the title. George Lopez? Really? Imagine the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air being ""Will Smith"". C'mon man! But otherwise, this show is genius! 10/10",Positive "Feature of early 21 century cinema of lets pit different evil creatures and bad guys against each other. We haven't seen stuff like this since Godzilla v King Kong and the like. Always sounds great on paper when you're splicing up and in a haze of the good stuff you have an inspired idea and see the whole playing out before you like Beethoven's symphonies. Then you come to writing it. Great ideas like all vampires are female. Ergo hot, seductive deadly but in a way I want to perish sort of way. And all zombies are men. well thats what men are like to a woman just after shes been dumped or cheated on right? So it all looks good up to actually making it. Then the rot starts to set in. Mosters have fight. Nothing much happens. Another fight. Philosophical noodling and cods wallop. Eureka we've found how to win. Big fight again and the End. Sounds great doesn't it? If it was made an indie company it would be great. But this is Hollywood with the eye on the bucks: gloss instead of what the fans want. It all could have been gore soaked beautiful.",Negative "I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

",Positive "Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend",Negative "I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.

Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.

If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.",Negative "This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers:

This short has a ""story"" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.

My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.

The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.

This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation.",Positive "This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor ""Robot Jox"". This must be also the reason why its most common name is ""Robot Wars"" and not the alternate name ""Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars"".

""Robot Jox"" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.

Just like ""Robot Jox"" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that ""Robot Jox"" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.

What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.

Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?

For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.

You can better watch a ""Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers"" episode, for some more action and likability.

3/10",Negative "The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.

Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say ""The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration.""

The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.

",Positive "I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.

It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.

Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.

Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!

Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.",Positive "SPOILERS

A buddy of mine said NEXT MOVIE was the best Cheech & Chong flick and went out of his way to have me borrow it and THE BLUES BROTHERS. NEXT MOVIE has no plot, has no pacing, really has no anything of what defines a movie ... but it is funny. And for what it is worth, Cheech and Chong show some heart.

Well, in this little paragraph I put in the plot, but being that four-fifths of the movie, nothing happens that would usually start a story. I will just say that Cheech 's cousin shows up.

Was there no other funnier moment when Chong made Cheech drink the pee twice? What about the rooster? Was that Pee-Wee Herman's first movie appearance? You would have to watch the movie yourself to enjoy it. I don't think NEXT MOVIE has strong enough balls to make it awesome, but the movie has heart and hey, my buddy let me borrow it so it gets a 7.",Positive "There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.",Negative "I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting...

...but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is ""broken""! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.

The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.

On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.

After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there.",Negative "If the crew behind ""Zombie Chronicles"" ever read this, here's some advice guys:

1. In a ""Twist Ending""-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...?

2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...

3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.

4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the ""reveal"" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.

Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...

Only for zombie completists.",Negative "If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.

SPOILERS--

Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who ""supposedly"" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body!

The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly!

Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars)",Negative "Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the ""strange baseball-like game"", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said ""oh yes!"" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time ""oh no"" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.",Positive "I saw this pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless ""Spirit"" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of ""camp"". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, ""Boy, was I stupid!"" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of ""camp"", that was also ""underplayed"", by both the actor and actress.",Positive "Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.

I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again.",Negative "Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V.",Negative "My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.

Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.

But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, ""Parker"" (Jonathan Schaech) and ""Sam"" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, ""Tootsie"".

The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.

I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.",Positive "when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D",Positive "Yes, it's another great magical Muppet's movie and I adore them all; the characters, the movies, the TV show episodes (it's the best comedy or musical TV show ever) and all the artists behind it. But here they did such a rare fatal mistake and I'm surely talking about the weird ending !!

I think it's very dangerous to involve that much, in American drama, and end a love affair by marriage !! We, as all the poor viewers, feel so free or maybe happy for the absence of its annoyance, peevishness and misery ! So we all enjoy these stories which gather 2 cute heroes as couple in love without the legitimate bond like Mickey Mouse and Minnie, Superman and Lois Lane, Dick Tracy and Tess, etc. So with all of the previous couples and their likes I bet that you feel safe, serenity and peace. Therefore when you look at what the makers of this movie had already done you'll be as mad as me !

They made the weak miserable creature (Kermit) marry his daily nightmare, the most vexatious female ever (Miss Piggy) ! This is a historical change by the measures of the American entertainment's industry ! And it was pretty normal to have a negative impact upon the audience whom just refused to bless or believe or being satisfied with that sudden marriage (even the pathetic frog didn't have the time or the proper opportunity to think or to decide anything !). Therefore no wonder at all when you know that this movie is the most failure one in their cinematic serious, grossing only 25 millions vis-à-vis 65 millions earned by the first one (The Muppet Movie – 1979) five years earlier !!

Simply in this movie they took Manhattan, and my rest too !",Positive "I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.",Negative "This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.

The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.

The ""bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech"" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!",Negative "Superb movie. Very good photography of 1969/70 Bolton, which seems now to be a different world. Thoughtful and an excellent dramatisation and production. James Mason a real first class star. It is and I would agree with the above comment that this movie is a national treasure.",Positive "Obviously a film that has had great influence not only on the buddy genre but action genre as well. George Lucas had to be a fan of this flick as so much of his Star Wars series seems to a homage to Gunga Din. The characters that Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks play are just precursors of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Chewbacca. Even Sam Jaffe's Gunga Din morphed into C-3PO and R2-D2 and like him or not: Jar Jar Binks.

Today this film is viewed as non PC but there is a speech by Eduardo Ciannelli as Guru the leader of the Indian opposition to the British raj that could can be echoed in the sentiments of many today.

To a young boy this was a great film. Three strong male leads and only a hint of romance. There was a time when young boys deemed kissing the girl in Saturday matinee film was just mush. Not like today when the more skin is greeted with delight. Too late to lament lost innocence.

Hopefully this film will not be forgotten and a few who are channel surfing will stop at TCM and catch a film with action, adventure, and a cast of thousands instead of CGI actors.",Positive "Allow me to just get to the bottom line here: I've got 3 kids, ages 5 to 10. I consider a trip to the theater a success when there are no talking animals. I've seen most of the children's videos in our collection at least 72 times. I can tell you when the film gets reversed in The Wizard of Oz, the over-18 sexual joke in El Dorado and the tragic flaw with the ending of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I could probably storyboard Nemo from memory alone.

What makes me support the one child of mine (it varies) who suggests this title for the family movie of an evening? In a word: Showerman.

Moment of silence...

*sigh*",Positive "It's difficult to not have a liking for Israeli director Eytan Fox and for his movies, which describe the life in the middle east and the inherent problems gay people can have in these regions. Besides he also gave voice to the young generations, and to the remarkable part of them, who really need PEACE and who want to take no further notice of a war that for too much time marked the existences of people, both in Israel both in Palestine. These reasons, in my opinion, are sufficient to consider Fox a noteworthy director, even when his feeling for the melodrama is a tad out of control. However the fans of his movies (that he realized on team with Gal Uchovsky, his producer, co-screenwriter and also life companion) seem to not being vexed by this, since his new feature, THE BUBBLE (HA-BUAH), is having the same success of the previous YOSSI & JAGGER and WALK ON THE WATER. Announced as a contemporary gay version of ""Romeo & Juliet"", set in the present day Tel Aviv instead of Verona and with two men (one Israeli and the other Palestinian) at the place of the two Shakespearean young lovers, the film actually is quite different from that or, better, it's also something else. In fact the bubble of the title is the world apart in which the leading man, Noam, played by the Fox regular Ohad Knoller (Yossi in YOSSI & JAGGER, but I must confess I miss Jagger, the astonishing Yehuda Levi!) and his two co-tenants, a guy and a girl, chose to live. Around thirty-years-old, restless, witty and firm (despite the protagonist just spent a period as national service in a checkpoint on the frontier with the Palestine) to live a life that won't be only made of war. The two guys are gay and along with the girl they have established a trio in which they brotherly love and support each other. Their lives are destined to change when Noam falls in love with Ashraf (the TV star Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) a young Palestinian who came to live in Tel Aviv. The laws so far in force among the group are neglected, but not the will to aid one friend. Still it won't be easy for Noam and his friends, 'cause Ashraf is clandestine in Israel and in the meantime his family, who lives in Palestine and doesn't know he's gay, is looking forward to settle his wedding with a very beautiful girl, who is a relative of Ashraf's beloved sister bridegroom-to-be, who he is also a terrorist and he will have a strong liability in the development of the plot, with consequences not just for the two men. Because the prejudices against the homosexuality and the peace (interesting dualism, if not automatic) are stubborn and so the tragedy is unavoidable. Even if the film focus on the obstacles the relationship between Noam and Ashraf meets with, it doesn't the overlook the other characters, which turn out well written (for example Golan, the boyfriend of Yelli, Noam's fellow tenant, introduced as a lively boor, and then disclosed as a sweeter and more open minded person) and aptly performed (besides the two leads, we mustn't disregard the funny Zohar Liba and the lovely Daniela Virtzer, the girl of the gang; moreover LATE MARRIAGE's star Lior Ashkenazi appears as himself in a cameo). It also melds the gloomy tones with the more brilliant ones, even if the director can't do without a melodramatic conclusion. I watched this movie more than a month ago and in the meantime I often thought about it, proof that Fox and his pal have a knack to strike home.",Positive "What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are ""HOT"" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!

So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film.",Negative "A slasher flick, made in the early 80's, has a curse on it which has anyone who tries to finish it turning up dead. Years later, a group of film students attempted to complete the movie - also resurrecting the films deadly curse. Great idea for a film, but sadly 'Cut' is just another wasted opportunity.

Unfortunately Australia hasn't had the world's best track record when it comes to horror. 'Razorback' (1984) was an out and out dud as was 'Holwing III' (1987), which was half an American film anyway. As for our foray into comedy-horror, 'Body Melt' (1993) is best left forgotten. The problem with 'Cut' is that the makers trying to create a clever horror satire a la 'Scream' (1996) but have no insight into the genre or what makes it work. And although this sounds weird me saying this about a slasher film but what 'Cut' really lacks is any ""heart"". Sure it follows the basic ""rules"" established by 'Scream', but it doesn't want to play with the formula, instead it goes for a cardboard copy of the earlier.

The killer, Scarman, is probably one of the most boring and uncharismatic villains in horror movie history. His endless barrage awkwardly, lame one-liners would make the dialogue of a porno seem like Shakespeare. The cast never seem like their fully involved and look like their just waiting for a shoot to be over so they can collect their pay checks. And the feel of the film is like it's deliberately trying not to be creepy; looking more like an episode of 'Neighbors' or 'Heartbreak High'. By the way, those attempts at MTV style, hyper-cinema during the ""research"" sequence just look lame, dated and out of place.

If Australia ever gets a chance to do horror again (Which I hope we still do) maybe we should take a leaf from the 'Mad Max' (1979) book. Instead of trying to copy the U.S. we should be trying our own take on the genre.",Negative "Strange enough, all the previous comments merely described the beginning and left the details over. I feel a necessity to confirm that this is a family work, since Marina Vlady was also Robert Hossein's wife, and the - excellent - jazz music was written by te director's father, André. Under these circumstances, no wonder it was a really good thriller, seen when issued and immediately identified with the music. The suspense was flawless, and maintained throughout until the end. Robert Hossein, at the time one of the best European players, managed to impose himself also as a top screen and stage director. He's still putting up great stage shows, with a preference for religious subjects.harry carasso, Paris, France",Positive "I own this movie. Not by choice, I do. I was really bored the other day and the box intrigued me. So i popped it in the old VCR and spent the next hour and a half of my life crying ""why God why?"". The story-line was not that bad, as an gamer I could appreciate bits of it. I think that maybe if you're into super geeky-cheese romantic scenes you'll enjoy this film. ""I always thought of myself as a Vulcan you know like Dr.Spock...unable to love"" There is very few good things to say about this film, truly it is awful. But if you're up to really badly made film this is the one for you!!! The real story's much more interesting though ;)

If I had to sum up this film in one word it would be:

LAME",Negative "As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.

It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame ""judging"" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.",Negative "Joan Crawford had just begun her ""working girl makes good"" phase with the dynamic ""Paid"" (1930). She had never attempted a role like that before and critics were impressed. So while other actresses were wondering why their careers were foundering (because they were clinging to characters that had been the ""in"" thing a few years before but were now becoming passe) Joan was listening to the public and securing her longevity as an actress. The depression was here and jazz age babies who survived on an endless round of parties were frowned upon. Of course, if you became rich through immoral means but suffered for it - that was alright.

This film starts out with a spectacular house boat party. Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) is the most popular girl there - especially when she suggests that everyone go swimming in their underwear!!! However, when Bonnie's father has a heart attack, because of loses on the stock market, both Bonnie and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) realise who their real friends are. After Bob Townsend (Lester Vail - a poor man's Johnny Mack Brown) offers to do the ""right thing"" and marry her - they had just spent a night together when Bonnie declared (with abandon) that she wants love on approval - she starts to show some character by deciding to get a job.

She finds a job at a newspaper and quickly impresses by her will to do well. Her working buddy is Bert Scranton (Cliff Edwards) and together they are given an assignment to write about the inside activities of the mob. Rodney also surprises her with the news that he also has a job. She is thrilled for him but soon realises it is bootlegging and he is mixed up with cold blooded killer, Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Rodney witnesses a mass shooting and goes to pieces, ""spilling the beans"" to the first person he sees drinking at the bar - which happens to be Bert. He is then forced to kill Bert and after- wards he goes into hiding. The paper pulls out all stops in an effort to find Bert's killer and sends Bonnie undercover as a dancer in one of Jake's clubs. (Joan does a very lively dance to ""Accordian Joe"" - much to Sylvie's disgust). The film ends with a gun battle and as Rodney lies dying, Bonnie tearfully phones in her story.

This is a super film with Crawford and Gable giving it their all. Natalie Moorehead, who as Sylvie shared a famous ""cigarette scene"" with Gable early in the film, was a stylish ""other woman"" who had her vogue in the early thirties. William Bakewell had a huge career (he had started as a teenager in a Douglas Fairbanks film in the mid 20s). A lot of his roles though were weak, spineless characters. In this film he played the weak brother and was completely over-shadowed by Joan Crawford and the dynamic newcomer Clark Gable - maybe that was why he never became a star.

Highly Recommended.",Positive "This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron.

A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with ""Jane Eyre"" and ""Rebecca"" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever.

The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.

If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of ""Runaway Car"" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.

Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as ""A car is an extension of its owner!"", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped ""Titanic"" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.

My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first.",Negative "First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.

Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.

Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10",Negative "When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated ""PG,"" but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who ""rate"" them.

The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in ""The Sound Of Music.""

I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the ""Sleazy '70s"" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's ""Columbo"" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.",Negative "According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... ""blah"" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese ""geisha-fashion"". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!",Negative "We all know that countless duds have graced the 80s slasher genre and often deserve nothing but our deepest disgust. Maybe that's a bit hastey but damn if ""Slaughter High"" wasn't terribly unoriginal, even for a slasher flick. Pretty much, the plot involves a kid who experienced a Carrie-like shower humiliation in high school and returns to the dilapidated building to seek out revenge on a group of former-bullies who all show up to reminisce. As you'd expect, they are killed off steadily by a masked madman on April 1st by means of electrocution, burning, hanging, and chemically altered beer. I've got a number of problems with the plot details and settings of this movie, but considering the ending, I feel the need to discard my complaints and just say that this is a complete waste of time. Ignore any thought of viewing this movie...",Negative "While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.

The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.

I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie.",Positive "I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. ""Election"" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit.",Positive "I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...

Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.

Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.

The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.

All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.

PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo.",Positive "This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.",Negative "Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from ""exhaling cheeseburgers"" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been.",Positive "I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike.",Positive "This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie ""The One"" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.

and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm ""the One"" Reviewer that matters.",Negative "This movie is nothing short of a dark, gritty masterpiece. I may be bias, as the Apartheid era is an area I've always felt for. But I'd say it ranks right up with Cry Freedom and Cry the Beloved Country. Sadly up until a few days ago I'd never even heard of this movie. Inside is one of the most underrated films of all time, probably because it was a small film company, I'd never even heard of it before. Eric Stoltz, one of my favorite actors anyway, is believable and dramatic, Nigel Hawthorne plays his dastardly role well. Do not look for humor in this film, there is none. It is real, savage and gritty to the last, and to the sensitive I'd say bring a box of tissues. But movies as great as this make you wonder, why is it that the greatest films are often never heard of?",Positive "This movie has a special way of telling the story, at first i found it rather odd as it jumped through time and I had no idea whats happening.

Anyway the story line was although simple, but still very real and touching. You met someone the first time, you fell in love completely, but broke up at last and promoted a deadly agony. Who hasn't go through this? but we will never forget this kind of pain in our life.

I would say i am rather touched as two actor has shown great performance in showing the love between the characters. I just wish that the story could be a happy ending.",Positive "One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. ""12 Monkeys"" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. ""12 Monkeys"" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.",Positive "This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palmawith amazing performances all around!. It's extremely suspenseful, and often scary, and the score is fantastic, plus all the characters were awesome. Yes it rips off Psycho a lot, however it's still a brilliantly made horror/thriller, with a fantastic opening and a shocking and unpredictable finale!. This is unquestionably one of the best horror/thrillers i have ever seen, and the elevator scene is one of the most memorable scenes ever, plus Michael Caine is simply amazing in this!. The ending is excellent, and the hospital scene near the end is absolutely terrifying, plus the end twist shocked the hell out of me!. It never failed to creep me out, and the stalk sequences are absolutely brilliant, plus Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon had fantastic chemistry together!. This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palma, with amazing performances all around!. The Direction is Incredible!. Brian De Palma does an incredible job here, with Amazing camera work, incredible angles, fantastic use of colors, awesome zoom in's and zoom out's great POV shots and keeping the film at a very very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood. We get bloody stabbings, knifing's, bloody gunshot wounds,and 2 bloody slit throats.The Acting is amazing!. Michael Caine is AMAZING here, he is amazing in the acting department, creepy, is very likable, was mysterious, and really just did an amazing job overall i Loved him! (Caine Rules!). Angie Dickinson gives a memorable performance here, and was quite beautiful, and had good chemistry with Caine. Nancy Allen is STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS!, and is fantastic here, she is extremely likable as the hooker, had excellent chemistry with Keith Gordon, and put on a tremendous show!. Keith Gordon is very good as the kid, he had excellent chemistry with Nancy Allen, and was very likable!. Dennis Franz is good as the detective. Overall this is unquestionably one of the best horror films ever made, and i say drop what your doing immediately and go see it!. ***** out of 5",Positive "With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out.",Positive "As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.",Negative "Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of ""Rosemary's Baby"", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, ""Incubus"" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful – although it isn't very good, neither – but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for ""Incubus"" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, ""Incubus"" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.",Negative "I had VERY low expectations for this alleged ""re-imagining"" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.",Negative "For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos (""Full House"")& Stockwell (""Christine"", ""Top Gun""). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the ""14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer"" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.",Positive "It's depressing to see where Jackie Chan has ended up. He used to be an unstoppable hurricane of punches, kicks and incredible stunts. To be fair, he's now in his fifties and one would expect some slowdown. But with 'Rush Hour 3', where he takes a back seat to Chris Tucker (of all people!), and then there's 'Kung Fu Panda' where not only is he in a purely vocal role but his character barely has any dialogue... to say that Jackie Chan has seen better days is a colossal understatement.

It's times like this when the only solution is to whip out a dusty old VHS tape and watch Jackie kick some arses in his younger, fitter, Chris Tucker-free days.

Enter 'Police Story'. Jackie Chan plays Kar-kui, a policeman whose task it is to protect a witness before a major trial. He faces resistance from both the unco-operative witness and the numerous hit men sent by the mob to silence them both.

But on the other hand, who cares? We don't watch Jackie Chan films for the story. We watch them to see Jackie Chan perform eye-popping stunts and generally punch and kick a whole lot of people who are less awesome than he is.

And on that level, 'Police Story' doesn't disappoint at all. There is an awesome showdown in a shopping mall at the end that culminates in Jackie sliding down a giant, high-voltage chandelier. Seriously, if this sort of thing happened more often, no male would ever need coaxing to go shopping for clothes.

There is also comedy, much of which involves Kar-kui inadvertently upsetting May (Maggie Cheung), his eternally suffering and apparently ever forgiving girlfriend. The humour on the whole is pretty unsubtle, but it works so I'm not complaining.

The acting isn't too subtle, either. Indeed, I'm not sure there was anything subtle about 'Police Story' at all. Director Jackie Chan (yeah, he does that too) clearly has a deep understanding of why we watch his films, and knows that while we're waiting for the next fight to start, the last thing we want is to be looking for nuance and depth and inner meaning.

So 'Police Story' is a blast. As is the case with most of his films, the fact that Jackie actually does the stuff you see on the screen puts it head and shoulders above the competition. I mean, when Jackie Chan really is hanging from a speeding bus by an umbrella, a whole new ""Wow!"" factor is added to the action.",Positive "I caught this film late on a sat night/ Sunday morning with my brother. We had been drinking. This is one of the best films for ripping apart I have ever seen. From the 'luxury' ocean liner actually being a 'roll on, roll off' ferry, complete with cast iron everything to the doors with adhesive stickers saying staff, then seeing the same door being used for something else in another scene - this film rocks!! The continuity is so poor you cant help but notice it, it slaps you in the face with the holes. In the final scene he jumps off a life boat with the ferry in the distance. Cut to his son and new girlfriend (The ships PR director who knows kung-fu and used to be in the police but was dismissed for doing things her way - true)on the ferry going very fast away from the explosion. ......Then the dad is there hugging them. HoW???? Who cares, its magic. There is not one redeeming feature to this film. The casino is the size of a large bedroom with one casino table. when being chased by the villains there is only One place to hide, you've guessed it. Enter the villains who, instead of checking under the One table, proceed to shoot up four fruit machines and a little corner bar (a corner bar in the casino - fantastic). They walk straight past the only hiding place thus allowing our Casper to get around them and 'take them out'.

Get some mates over, get a few drinks in, put this film on and howl.",Positive "As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon",Negative "When I started watching the show I said ""Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!"". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.

But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.

I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased.",Positive "For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of ""The Great Escape,"" which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in ""Gomer Pyle"" and ""Hogan's Heros."" Then a second wave triggered by ""Catch 22"" and ""MASH,"" both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the ""Phil Silvers Show,"" about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from ""Mister Roberts."" A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom.

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. ""Stripes"" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some ""Dirty Dozen."" And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.",Negative "Robin Williams does his best to combine comedy and pathos, but comes off a bit shrill. Donald Moffat is too one-note as his father-in-law. Jeff Bridges is excellent though as the quarterback, and Holly Palance and Pamela Reed are marvelous, carrying the film through most of its rough spots. It fills time nicely, but is little more than that.",Positive "Despite pretty bad reviews, I just had to give this film a go – it does, after all, star HK super-babe Shu Qi plus 6 other oriental lovelies as a team of all-action cat-burglars. Surely that's worth checking out? Well, as babe-fests go, Martial Angels is hard to beat. The eye candy is top quality. Shu Qi looks as fantastic as always, and of the rest of the girls, Rosemary Vandebrouck and Amanda Strang caught my roving eye in particular.

Unfortunately, if one is to judge this movie by any other possible merits, it is an absolute stinker! The story is weak, the action shoddy and the special effects downright pathetic. Director Clarence Fok and Producer Wong Jing have given us a photogenic cast and little else.

If Shu Qi is the only reason you're contemplating seeing this one, you would be better off watching Sex and Zen 2 again!",Negative "Realistic movie,sure,except for the fact that the characters don't look like to be scared. When Billy Zane tries to kill someone, he feels bad...but he doesn't look like to. That's why I don't like his performance in this movie. Tom Berenger is again playing a soldier. No good thrill, realistic sequences. Not always shooting, that is one great thing. Well filmed. I hate the helicopter sequence, cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch...I give it **and a half out of *****",Negative "This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: ""Send me a copy,"" after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; ""What a pain in the neck,"" after strangling subzero with barbed wire; ""He had to split,"" after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, ""Now that hit the spot."" Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger.",Positive "Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.

In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.

Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.

Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.

The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for.",Positive "was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-)",Negative "Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of ""The Honeymooners"",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.

Eddie Murphy,when he was on ""Saturday Night Live"",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of""Saturday Night Live"".""Eddie Murphy Delirious""is his best stand up performance next to ""Eddie Murphy Raw"".

I give ""Eddie Murphy Delirious"" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars.",Positive "Here are the matches . . . (adv. = advantage)

The Warriors (Ultimate Warrior, Texas Tornado and Legion of Doom) v The Perfect Team (Mr Perfect, Ax, Smash and Crush of Demolition): Ax is the first to go in seconds when Warrior splashes him for the pin (4-3 adv. Warriors). I knew Ax wasn't a healthy man but if he was that unhealthy why bother have him on the card? This would be his last PPV. Eventually, both Legion of Doom and Demolition job out cheaply via double disqualification (2-1 adv. Warriors). Perfect applies the Perfect Plex on Texas Tornado for the pin. He then attempts the same on Warrior but Warrior no-sells it and kicks out. Warrior comes back with a splash to pin Perfect and become the sole survivor. 5/10

The Dream Team (Dusty Rhodes, Koko B Ware and The Hart Foundation v Million Dollar Team (Ted Dibiase, Mystery Partner and Rhythm and Blues): The mystery partner is The Undertaker and, on his debut, makes an impact disposing of Koko straight away with The Tombstone(Monsoon still manages to say his correct height, weight and finishing move while pretending not to know who he is) making it 4-3 to Dibiase's Team. Niedhart power-slams Honky for the pin (3-3) and his career with the WWF is over. Shortly afterwards, it is Niedhart who falls victim to Dibiase with help from Virgil (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Rhodes next after an Undertaker double axe-handle off the top rope but doesn't leave quietly attacking Brother Love. Undertaker goes after Dusty and gets counted out despite not being the legal man (2-1 adv. Dibiase's Team). Almost straight after, Greg gets caught in a cradle by Hart trying to put the figure four leg-lock on him and gets pinned. It comes down to Hart v Dibiase and after a few minutes of nice wrestling, Bret gets his body-cross reversed by Dibiase for the pin. Dibiase is the sole survivor. At least Hart is put to good use. 6/10

The Vipers (Jake 'The Snake' Roberts, 'Superfly' Jimmy Snuka and The Rockers) v Visionaries (Rick 'Model' Martel, Warlord and Power and Glory): After spending some time in the ring, Marty Jannetty gets power slammed by Warlord as he comes off the top rope for the pin (4-3 adv. Visionaries). Snuka gets pinned in seconds by Martel who reverses his body cross (4-2 adv. Visionaries). Michaels gets caught in the Power Plex and pinned by Roma (4-1 adv. Visionaries). It is now Roberts against four men resembling his Survivor Series effort two years before. Despite hitting Warlord with the DDT, Roberts gets counted out chasing after Martel. The Visionaries are the first team in Survivor Series history to completely survive as one. Not much here worth watching to be honest as the psychology is rushed. 3/10

Hulkamaniacs (Hulk Hogan, 'Hacksaw' Jim Duggan, Bigbossman and Tugboat) v Natural Disasters (Earthquake, Dino Bravo, Barbarian and Haku): One Bossman slam eliminates Haku early in the bout (4-3 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Duggan gets his 2 by 4 out after whacking Earthquake with it to get disqualified (3-3). Bravo commits career suicide shortly afterwards by allowing Hogan to cradle him for the pin (3-2 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Earthquake manages to overcome Bossman with two elbow drops for the pin shortly afterwards (2-2). Hogan gets beat down and FINALLY Tugboat gets a tag (who knew he was there at this point?), he wrestles for about 30 seconds before getting counted out with Earthquake. Only Hogan and Barbarian left. Barbarian puts in some nice offence but inevitably gets caught in the big boot and leg drop for the pin. Hogan is the sole survivor. 4/10

The Alliance (Nikolai Volkoff, Tito Santana and Bushwhackers) v Mercenaries (Sgt Slaughter, Boris Zhukov and Orient Express): All of the Mercanaries wore camouflage face paint. Lightning quick pins here with Santana pinning Zhukov in his last PPV in seconds (4-3 adv. Alliance). There wasn't even a Bolshevik showdown. Bushwhackers hit Sato with The Battering Ram even though Tanaka was the legal man (4-2 adv. Alliance) and would be his last appearance on WWF PPV as The Orient Express get repackaged. Tanaka follows Sato when Santana stuns him with the flying forearm (4-1 adv. Alliance). Despite Slaughter getting in the ring against four men, he eliminates Volkoff (who's career is over after this), Butch and Luke in that order with relative ease. Finally, Santana beats Slaughter by disqualification when General Adnan hits him with Iraqi flag. At last some interesting booking even though the match was awful. Santana takes the upset victory as the sole survivor and becomes his last finest hour. 3/10

The egg hatches and it's Hector Guerrerro in a silly outfit. He dances with Gene Okerlund and gets booed by the crowd while Piper and Monsoon pretend they are enjoying it.

Match of Survival: Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan and Tito Santana v Warlord, Power and Glory, Rick 'Model' Martel and 'Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase: Just merely another catalogue of eliminations as Santana pins Warlord in seconds with flying forearm at least avenging his previous Summerslam defeat (4-3 adv. Dibiase's team). Dibiase stun guns Santana afterwards for the pin (4-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan kicks out of The Power Plex and proceeds to pin Roma after a clothesline, effectively killing off Power and Glory's push (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan eliminates Martel by count-out and Dibiase with the leg drop for the pin (2-1 adv. Hogan's team). Hogan finally allows Warrior into the match who quickly disposes of former nemesis Hercules after a splash. A very predictable ending to the point of nauseous. 2/10

Overall, too many matches and too little time obviously had a detrimental effect as the wrestlers were almost waiting on a conveyor belt to be pinned. Most of the heels were decimated by Warrior and Hogan which is a poor way to handle a great roster of wrestlers.",Negative "I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!

This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the ""romance"" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his ""death"", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.",Negative "I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.

Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.

The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.

This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.",Negative "Yep.. this is definatly up there with some of the worst of the MSTifyed movies, but I have definately seen worse. Think Gremlins rated R. Well anyway, I met Rick Sloane at some sci-fi convention, that amazingly, he was lecturing at! It was one of those really low budget conventions, where everything goes, an everyone brought in something (if you want to see crap, you should have of seen what some friends and I brought in).

He seemed like a very nice guy, he was very cool about my questions and comments on Hobgoblins, and he even told me not to take it seriously, and said he loved the MST3K version!

All in all, Rick Sloane knew what he was doing. And I think was meant to bad like Mars Attacks. So I guess I'm standing up for this movie and giving it a 5, and betraying all my fellow MSTies. Sorry guys.",Negative "I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, ""Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!"" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the ""hilarious"" and ""outstanding"" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered ""comedy"" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.",Negative "CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine.",Positive "London Dreams, directed by Vipul Shah, is a frustratingly foolish film about foolish people. It's the kind of film whose central conflict could be instantly resolved if the characters concerned simply sat down and had a chat. Ajay Devgan plays Arjun, an aspiring pop-artiste obsessed with performing before a cheering crowd at London's Wembley Stadium. He becomes jealous of his devoted best friend and band-mate Manu, played by Salman Khan, who is evidently more talented than him, but nowhere near as focused or ambitious. Arjun decides to sabotage Manu when the latter's popularity threatens to outshine his own. Now here's where a heart-to-heart might have helped. Had Arjun explained what this Wembley fixation meant to him, Manu would have graciously backed off and let Arjun fulfill his childhood dream, and we'd have been spared the agony of watching the rest of this uninspiring drivel. But director Vipul Shah and his writers are in no mood to do us any favours. London Dreams is packed with unintentionally hilarious gems like that back-story involving Arjun's grandpa who committed suicide out of shame for getting stage-fright at a packed Wembley concert. Or the ridiculous incident at a show where Manu must take over vocal responsibilities after a blast of confetti practically chokes Arjun into silence. The idiocy, however, doesn't end there. In his attempts to shame Manu publicly, Arjun uses his connections to get Manu hooked onto drugs. A buxom groupie urges Manu to down a couple of tequila shots with her but replaces his salt with cocaine. Before you know it, Manu has acquired quite the appetite for the addictive white powder, practically chomping it down like dinner. If that isn't silly enough, there's a crude scene later in which Manu chases after the said girl to find out who she's been taking orders from. The pursuit ends in a dark London alley where the girl gets down on her knees pretending to do the unmentionable so as to mislead Manu's girlfriend who's been secretly following after them. Wait, there's more! Expect to howl hysterically when Arjun snaps off his belt and whips himself mercilessly to banish all thoughts of romance or lust towards the band's lead dancer Priya (played by Asin) because nothing and no one must distract him from his musical goals. Too generously inspired by Milos Forman's Amadeus for it to merit any comparison with last year's Rock On!, Vipul Shah's latest is a clunky melodrama that's as loosely directed as it is scripted. The film goes for broad humor, over-the-top emotions, and basically chooses loudness over subtlety. That works for Manu's character, with Salman Khan playing him all loutish and lovable, but in the case of Arjun, Ajay Devgan comes off too passive with a performance that is mostly internalised. When Arjun does reach boiling point however, it results in an awkward pre-climax scene in which he lectures a packed concert hall and is understandably pelted with plastic bottles as punishment. Of the remaining cast, there's not a kind word I can say for Asin, who practically lit up Ghajini with her ebullient charm, but disappoints here with unnecessary over-acting in a thankless role. Ranvijay Singh and Aditya Roy Kapur, reduced to mere sidekicks in the band, show up at regular intervals, usually to utter some inane dialogue like, ""We'll rock it dude!"" For its dim-witted writing and sloppy direction, London Dreams is ultimately a tiresome watch. If you must, watch it for Salman Khan who's turned buffoonery into a bonafide acting style. It's the only thing that'll make you smile in this sad, sad film.",Negative "This is very much not the sort of movie for which John Wayne is known. He plays a diplomat, a man who gets things done through words and persuasion rather than physical action. The film moves with a quiet realism through its superficially unexciting story.

For the open-minded, the patient and the thoughtful, this movie is a rich depiction of an intriguing part of history.

There are two intertwining stories. The big story is of internalised, isolationist Japan and externalised, expansionist America clashing when their interests conflict. The small, human, story is of an outsider barbarian (Wayne) and a civilised Geisha's initial hostility and dislike turning to mutual respect and love. The human story is a reflection of the greater story of the two nations.

The movie is very well done and all actors play their roles well. The two lead roles are performed to perfection. John Wayne is excellent as Townsend Harris, striking exactly the right blend of force and negotiation in his dealings with the Japanese. Eiko Ando is likewise excellent as the Geisha of the title, charming and delightful. The interaction between her character and John Wayne's is particularly well portrayed. This is exactly how these two individuals (as they are depicted in the film) would have behaved.

The script is very well written. It lacks all pomposity. and is a realistic depiction of the manner in which the depicted events may have occurred. The characters are real people, not self-consciously ""great"" figures from history. Furthermore, the clash of cultures and interests is portrayed with great skill and subtlety. Indeed, the clash of a traditionalist, and traditionally powerful, isolationist Japan and a rising, newly powerful nation from across the ocean is summarised very well in one exchange between John Wayne and the local Japanese baron. Wayne complains that shipwrecked sailors are beheaded if they land in Japan, and that passing ships cannot even put into port for water. The Baron responds that Japan just wants to be left alone. Wayne's character replies that Japan is at an increasingly important crossroads of international shipping, and that if things continue as before the nation will be regarded as nothing more than a band of brigands infesting an important roadway. A very real summary of the way in which the two countries each saw themselves as being in the right, and saw the other as being in the wrong. The resultant clash between two self-righteous peoples with conflicting interests has its reflections throughout history, a continuing theme that echoes into the present and on into the future.

Cinematography and the depiction of mid-nineteenth century Japan, before the accelerated growth towards industrialisation that was to follow later in the century, is excellent. A visual treat, and an enlightening insight into Japan's ancient civilisation.

I highly recommend anyone, whether a John Wayne fan or not, to watch this film if you get the chance. Just be aware that it isn't an action film. It is a representation of an interesting place and time in history, and a slow-boiling love story which (much to their surprise) comes to dominate the personal lives of the two main characters. Watch this film on its merits, without preconceptions, allow yourself to be immersed in its story, and you will thoroughly enjoy it.

All in all, an excellent film.",Positive "This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from ""Dances With Wolves"" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from ""Barry Lyndon"" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...

Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with ""5 months later""; ""3 years later"") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in ""Titanic"").

Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed ""Greystoke"" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....

I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...",Negative "Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in ""Diva Las Vegas"". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing ""Stay With Me"" from her 1979 movie ""The Rose"". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums.",Positive To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?

This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.

Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.

'nuff said?,Negative "one of the best low budget movies from Germany! is this is the dark side of new age? if you believe in esoteric, please don't watch this movie! it blows all your positive fantasies away. this movie shows that beyond the peaceful façade of spiritual soul searching lies a world of extreme transgressions and terror. i hope there will be a 35 mm copy soon! Andreas Marschall's first film is just the beginning of a new area, making movies with a few euros! i'm waiting for the second hit!",Positive "I am marking this as a ""spoiler"" only because of some of my comments of the show's content, not to the content itself.

As I read the comments it is apparent that those Republicans somehow tolerate the show, but disdain it, while the Democrats seems to relish in its so called truthfulness. One reader even (so it seems) actually indicates that he believes these events did or could have happened when Bush was in grade school.

But as to the content as I see it, trying to be neutral, is that the group that made this series must actually be really Bush haters. In the Episode that I saw last, s02e03, it showed that the program must have been put together long before McCain became the front runner for the nomination; because, the other former front runners are all featured.

Another thing that caught my attention, was the use of add in closets. I thought that the series must have been made in Europe of for sure not in the U.S.A., because I know of no home the U.S.A. that does not have built in closets, and most likely in the homes of the artists.

As I watch the show, yes I do get caught up in it, I am amazed to see what must be a terrific desire of the writers to do what they can to embarrass our President. Sure there are problems as most American will agree, but that is no reason to be so hateful in public displays seen around the world. Perhaps the trend has now been set by this show and network, so that IF Obama or Hillary got in, would they continue to produce and air the same sort of ""humor"" about them?

Just one more comment on a commentator's remarks. IF there had been some sort of change in the election back in 2000, according to that writer, he was so sure that there would be a completely different acceptable president. Wow, wishful thinking on his part. As far as 911 events, I do believe that it was set in motion back when Clinton was president, and I can't see how if Gore was president anything would be much different.",Negative "Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.",Negative "A ""friend"", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The ""whore mangler"" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.",Negative "*May contain spoilers* *May contain spoilers*

In the age of Shrek(the movie) & Pixar(the studio), this is a much more traditional animation film. It put together some characters that normally wouldn't be seen together(not to mentioned, try to save a human baby and bring it back to his father). They begin as enemies and end as best friend. If this sound like a Disney film, it is(only made through 20th Century Fox). The trailer to the movie was one of the best I've seen in ages, but the movie doesn't live to the expectation the trailer set. The problem lie with the fact that the makers of the film didn't made up their mind who is the target audience of the film. Yes, there are some jokes in the film that only adults will understand but the film is mostly aimed at children. The parents will enjoy the fact that for 90 min. their children's attention is focused on something else than them. The backgrounds are excellent and the voice are good but this is nothing more the a nice film. Children will love this film, adults will only like it.",Positive "This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.",Negative "Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.",Negative "I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was drawn into it.

The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A humorous idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for greater changes in the students' lives.

What surprised me about the film was how real it felt. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so well. I enjoyed the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was very poignant. Nothing seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find fast friends, form strong bonds, and make discoveries about yourself, yet have to depart all too soon.

My only complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...

Aside from this, I found the film very well-rounded and quite enjoyable. See it if you get the opportunity.",Positive "I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be ""the true story,"" but it's a great film.",Negative "Fascist principal Miss Togar(Mary Woronov, who is lensed by expert photographer Dean Cundy as if she were ten feet tall)has a plan to turn her high completely square. Complications ensue which challenge that goal in delightful rock'n'roller Riff Randell(PJ Soles who lights up the screen--she's got a hot bod, too)who is an obsessive fan of the punk band THE RAMONES. Pal Kate Rambeau(Dey Young, whose big rimmed glasses and nerdy role can not hide her stunning beauty)joins forces with Riff to put an end to the supposed crisis of killing rock'n'roll for good which is Togar's desired mission.

Vincent Van Patten has a hilarious role as Tom Roberts, a success at everything, but getting laid. Kate is crazy about Tom..if only he could pull his head out of the sand and see it. Clint Howard steals the film almost(honestly, who can steal this film away from Soles?)as Eaglebauer, ""the supplier"" who can get everyone almost anything. His office is located in the boy's restroom! Paul Bartel is also hilarious as a music teacher who becomes an ally of Riff's when he enjoys a concert of THE RAMONES.

A raucous high school romp that defies all rules of normalcy..and I loved it. It's like someone just says, ""Let's make life fun for 1½ hours."" The film really is anarchy..a plot-less chaos lovingly adoring THE RAMONES with all it's heart(even if they are horrible actors, they have an opportunity to gain new audiences with this film).

The ending pretty much sums up the film as a whole..Riff and her classmates take over the high school and one massive party begins. To be honest, I didn't want the party to end! Not conventional in any way whatsoever, this film just let's loose a frenzy. Accompanied by a great rock soundtrack featuring some of THE RAMONES best songs, this film allows a viewer to accept a time in life when war didn't dominate headlines and people just had a good time. Those, I guess were the days.",Positive "Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.

It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.

The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.

Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.

The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction.",Positive "This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!

Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.

I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: ""Don't sh-t where you eat!""; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage ""taking"" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background!

There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.

None quite equals Moonstruck!",Positive "I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists.

Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.

On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.

I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.",Positive "Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits.",Negative This movie was billed as a comedy and a mystery. It fails badly at both. The only mystery here is why would anybody make such a poorly constructed movie. The only comedy is the laugh I got when I saw how high the readers here ranked it. Could there be two movies with the same name? The movie I saw starred a girl with pretty blue eyes and a plot that wasn't there.

,Negative Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.,Negative "Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the ""idealistic youths"" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.

This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.",Negative "Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.

Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun.",Positive "Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this film

has an explosives store. This is the only place the title character

can purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.

A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that was

condemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as a

waitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where the

mall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonist

responsible for the fire as a security guard after his first security

guard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before ""Silk Stalkings,"" is a

photog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,

and their mutual ""funny"" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Eric

is still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and traveling

through the air ducts and offing different people who upset his

former girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps her

and the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from the

scene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for the

ride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.

Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entire

story is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge against

people as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is no

suspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to see

Estes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.

Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with the

mall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle of

a crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to her

office, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary a

policeman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.

Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not sure

where. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would think

some construction worker would have found him. He also has

furnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since he

has electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!

Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guard

out of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanning

Celebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainy

black and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.

This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting just

about anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. This

film is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for me

being dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do not

recommend it. That'll show 'em!

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,

some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and some

sexual content.",Negative "I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, ""Last Comic Standing."" If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's ""pre-determined"" if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.

If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, ""Last Comic Standing"" and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, ""Last Comic Standing 7"" on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.

Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y",Negative "I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie ""Keys to Tulsa"" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if ""To Live and Die in LA"" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.",Negative "This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is ""unorthodox"" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!

Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!",Positive "Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the ""actors"" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the ""film"", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The ""special effects"" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this ""film"" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time.",Negative "The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie.",Negative "Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...

Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.

The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of ""furniture"" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.

The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the ""scoops"" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.

One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.

The Bottom Line:

An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.",Positive "Generally speaking, the plot was much better than I was expecting. The laugh track was a bit annoying at times and did tend to get in the way; however, there were enough real chuckles in this episode to make up for it. My biggest surprise was finding some of the best lines and situations were not shown in the trailers. Spade, in particular, was not presented in the best light in the earlier promotions, but his character comes across quite well in the pilot. There is is enough eye-candy to please almost anyone and all the regular characters seem up to the task ahead of them. Now, if the writers can just live up to what they have begun.",Positive "Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The ""stars"" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, ""Jinx"", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.",Negative "Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.",Negative "I think it's one of the greatest movies which are ever made, and I've seen many... The book is better, but it's still a very good movie!",Positive "I have read all of the Love Come Softly books. Knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book,but generally they at least have the main point of the book. I was highly disappointed in this movie. The only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that Missy's father comes to visit,(although in the book both parents come). That is all. The story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes, sad, from the book, that I just couldn't enjoy it. Even if I didn't read the book it was too sad. I do know that Pioneer life was rough,but the whole movie was a downer. The rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.",Negative "The director and two stars of LAURA (1944) were reteamed for this solid policier: Dana Andrews is the son of a criminal who becomes a cop to cut all ties with the past but cannot keep his inherited violent ways in check while interrogating suspects and, one night, he goes too far; Gene Tierney is the estranged wife of his victim, a decorated war hero who has become involved with the town's leading racketeer and Andrews' No. 1 nemesis, Gary Merrill (who had himself been the protégé of Andrews Snr.)! As usual with Preminger, this is a well-crafted movie with a notable opening credits sequence and enlivened by a good cast that also includes Karl Malden (as Andrews' incumbent superior), Tom Tully (as Tierney's motor-mouth taxi driver dad) and Neville Brand (as Merrill's chief thug), with notable support also coming from Craig Stevens (as the slimy, wife-beating victim), Bert Freed (as Andrews' sympathetic partner) and Robert F. Nolan (as Andrews' stern outgoing superior). Having already been warned by the latter to mend his ways or else, Andrews panics and impersonates Stevens for a couple of hours following his murder to put the police on the (in this case) wrong tracks of Merrill; however, after Tully becomes the prime suspect (by which time Andrews and Tierney are romantically involved), the cop goes by himself in Merrill's lair fully intending to get bumped off and 'frame' the racketeer for his own murder! Clearly, the protagonist is a complex character and Andrews rises to the challenge with a first-rate characterization that is typically complemented by the in-house Fox noir style.",Positive "This is a brilliant documentary that follows the life of Herge and his creating TinTin. Its based around a series of interviews conducted in 1971, and covers every thing from his early life and ""Nazi collaboration"" to the final moments of his life.

Brilliantly edited, very cinematic and fast paced enough to not get boring. This film will give you a new appreciation for the work of Herge.

The film makers make the film more than just another documentary. Using the latest state of the art technology and for a change putting it to good use.

Recently more and more documentaries have been making it to cinemas. But this one as to be amongst the best...",Positive "My grandmother bought me this film when I was 5 (I've always love scary movies) and even then I enjoyed it. The atmosphere is awesome and the story original and entertaining. I especially love the scenes where the RV is under attack in the desert. The rocks are actually convincing for such a low-budget flick. The acting is above average for these kinds of films and the music is eerie. This is definitely an uder-rated gem. I recommend it to anyone who likes these strange films from the late seventies, early eighties such as ""Alice, Sweet Alice"", ""Poor Pretty Eddie"", ""Nightmare"", ""Hospital Massacre"", and ""Return of the Aliens, the Deadly Spawn"". Definitely a classic!!",Positive "Renny Harlin's first American film was one of the best of a slew of prison-set horror films(like ""Death House"" or ""The Chair"")in the late 80's.Twenty years before,guard Lane Smith had wrongfully executed a condemned man.Now,he is the warden of the newly re-opened prison,and the man's ghost is back for bloody revenge.This atmospheric and very moody film features lots of gruesome gore and violence.Viggo Mortensen,Tiny Lister,Tom Everett and Kane Hodder are onhand for the entertaining carnage.",Positive "In 1967 I visited the Lake Elsinore glider-port and flew a yellow Pratt Read sailplane. Returning to Germany the above serious ran on TV and one segment was about the high altitude sailplane flights in California in the early 50ies. (The real life pilot was Bill Ivans, I don't know who played him in the series) It turned out that the sailplane in the film was the same (same N-number) as the one I had flown at Lake Elsinore. Ever since I saw that segment I have been searching for it and have been wondering if it is somewhere available. (other segments in that serious were about the Baker Ejection Seat; an instrument to find avalanche victims etc.",Positive "Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else!

Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, ""Twas beauty who killed the beast"", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema.

However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?

But apart from that , IT""S GREAT!",Positive "I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...

It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.

I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!",Positive "How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is in all honesty one of the best comedies I've seen this year along with Pineapple Express and Step Brothers. Its not one of those ""gross out"" comedies that heavily relies on fart jokes and toilet humor but instead moves at an affable pace and you will be easily attached to the unfolding narrative. Simon Pegg nails it in the coffin with his hilarious portrayal of a fish-out-of-water character and is quickly detaching himself from the tripod he once belonged to back in England (the other two would be Nick Frost and Edgar Wright). Getting yourself in the top of the Hollywood food chain is a hard thing to do as we can clearly see with Pegg, his first jab at the lead role was David Schwimmer's comedy Run Fatboy Run but it received lukewarm reviews from critics and audiences alike. His second try is this movie, got fairly positive reviews from the majority but was a flop in the box office. I, for one still haven't lost faith in him and I'll still be there whenever he wants to take that third shot for glory.

Other characters were well cast from Jeff Bridges to Danny Huston and Gillian Anderson. Surprisingly, Kirsten Dunst in my opinion fared well in this movie as the love angle to Pegg's character however, the spark that I saw in Interview with the Vampire is still lost. She needs to find it, fast or she might suffer the consequences of being lost in the land of ""rom-coms"" forever.",Positive "There are people claiming this is another ""bad language"" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of ""Cero y van cuatro"" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider ""Tamales de Chivo"" the best one.

The movie is deeper than some ""cabrón"" and ""pendejo"" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously.",Positive "For starters, ""Hobgoblins"" tries to ape the more successful ""Gremlins"". That's bad enough but they don't even try to make anything that closely resembles a movie here. Instead, it's more like a bargain basement, everything-must-go clearance of embarrassing scenes, inappropriate sound FX, acting as bland as unflavored tapioca and a script that takes everything humans hold sacred in their motion pictures and throws 'em down the old tube-aroo.

The plot? Grrrr.... Meddling kids track down gremlin-like creatures from movie lot before they kill people by projecting their fantasies. Sound cool, does it? Well, see that wall on the other side of your room? Run right at it, top speed, face first. See, THAT is cooler than this movie.

You dare to doubt? Quick, name something else one of the leads has been in other than this. What other scripts have the writers done since ""Hobgoblins""? Name another Rick Sloane directoral effort. How many ""Hobgoblins"" action figures do you have? See? THANK you.

I cannot believe I took so long to write about such a horrible film. I'd rather write about more important things; like the separation of church and state, economic restructuring in Europe, that kind of thing. But no, ""Hobgoblins"" it is and it is bad - bad like your grandparents' wallpaper, bad as pink flamingos on your lawn, bad like underwear that says ""Home of the Whopper""...and I think we'll stop there.

Well, Mike and the robots fight valiantly but try as they might, they can do only so much with ""Hobgoblins"" before they realize that, yes, the director DOES need kicked in the shin.

Real, real hard.

One star for ""Hobgoblins"", seven stars for the MST3K version.",Negative "Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.

Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in ""Lives of a Bengal Lancer"", so I wasn't counting him).

Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal.",Negative "This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.",Positive "So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.

For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.

I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of ""We're not that much different from you"" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.

Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.

What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.

Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.

Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.

Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine",Negative "There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.",Positive "This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show!",Positive "Serials were short subjects originally shown in theaters in conjunction with a feature film that were related to pulp magazine serialized fiction. Known as ""chapter plays,"" they were extended motion pictures broken into a number of segments called ""chapters"" or ""episodes."" Each chapter would be screened at the same theater for one week. The serial would end with a cliffhanger, as the hero and heroine would find themselves in the latest perilous situation from which there could be no escape.

The audience would have to return the next week to find out how the hero and heroine would escape and battle the villain once again. Serials were especially popular with children, and for many children in the first half of the 20th century, a typical Saturday at the movies included a chapter of at least one serial, along with animated cartoons, newsreels, and two feature films.

The golden age for serials was 1936-1945. This was one of the best of the era.

Zorro has been seen in many films, but Reed Hadley (""Racket Squad"", The Undying Brain) was excellent in the role.

The action is constant, and we are led chapter by chapter to the ultimate end where we find out the identity of the evildoer.

Zorro triumphs, as he always does.",Positive "I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the ""villain"" that they decided they needed to create ""conflict."" Uh huh.

To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.

What a waste of the DVD format.",Negative "The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.

Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as ""Big Boy"" Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.

The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him ""the Bath."" James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.

This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business.",Positive "Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.

Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!)

Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable ""twist"") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another ""twist."" It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)",Negative I have seen this movie and even though I kind of knew who the killer was from the beginning I still liked watching it. I would recommend it to other people. It comes on Lifetime movie network quite a lot. And I am thinking since it's close to Halloween they might play it more. So please be on the look out for it if you are interested in watching it. I believe that Alicia Silverstone played her part very well. I really like her as an actress and person. She seems so nice and down to earth. Kevin Dillon he's performance was so so for me. I am not trying to knock him or anything but I believe that his brother Matt would have been able to pull this bad evil serial killer persona better. Kevin just seems too sweet for me. But I think he did okay.,Positive "Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from.",Positive "Troubled men's magazine photographer Adrien Wilde (well played with considerable intensity by Michael Callan) has horrific nightmares in which he brutally murders his models. When the lovely ladies start turning up dead for real, Adrien worries that he might be the killer. Writer/director William Byron Hillman relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, builds a reasonable amount of tension, delivers a few gruesomely effective moments of savage misogynistic violence (one woman who has a plastic garbage bag with a rattlesnake in it placed over her head rates as the definite squirm-inducing highlight), puts a refreshing emphasis on the nicely drawn and engaging true-to-life characters, further grounds everything in a plausible everyday world, and tops things off with a nice smattering of tasty female nudity. The fine acting from an excellent cast helps matters a whole lot: Joanna Pettet as sunny, charming love interest Mindy Jordache, James Stacy as Adrien's macho double amputee brother B.J., Seymour Cassel as Adrien's concerned psychiatrist Dr. Frank Curtis, Don Potter as Adrien's feisty gay assistant Louis, Pamela Hensley as gutsy homicide detective Sergeant Fountain, Cleavon Little as a hard-nosed police chief, and Misty Rowe as sweet, bubbly model Bambi. R. Michael Stringer's polished cinematography makes impressive occasional use of breathtaking panoramic aerial shots. Jack Goga's ominous rattling score likewise does the trick. Popping up in cool bit parts are Robert Tessier as a gruff bartender, Sally Kirkland as a saucy hooker, Kathy Shower as a fierce female wrestler B.J. grapples with in the ring, and Frances Bay in one of her standard old woman roles. A solid and enjoyable picture.",Positive "Well, the movie isn't exactly ""funny.""

Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, ""Okay, don't go anywhere.""

See, humorous, but not funny.

The plot and acting are pretty good.

But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.

There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.

Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak.",Positive "This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.",Positive "Lordi was a major hype and revelation in 2007 because they won the Eurovision Song Contest with a (not-so-heavy) metal song called ""Hard Rock Hallelujah"" and appeared on stage dressed like hideous monsters. But, let's face it, their victory most likely had very little to do with their great musical talents. The Eurovision contest gradually turned into one big political circus over the years and Lordi probably just won because their song finally brought a little change and – even more importantly - because their whole act sort of ingeniously spoofed the whole annual event. The absolute last thing Lordi's first (and hopefully last) horror film brings is change and ingenuity. ""Dark Floors"", based on an idea of the lead singer and starring the rest of the band in supportive roles, is a truly unimaginative and hopeless accumulation of clichés. The immense budget (""Dark Floors"" supposedly is the most expensive Finnish film ever) definitely assures greatly macabre set pieces and impressive make-up art, but what's the point where there's no story that is worth telling? The film takes is set in a busy hospital where a bunch of people, among them a father and his young daughter with an unidentifiable illness, become trapped in the elevator during a power breakdown. When the doors open again, the floors are empty and it looks as if the hospital lies abandoned since many years already. Trying to reach the exit, the group stumbles upon several morbid and inexplicable obstacles, like eyeless corpses, screaming ghosts and Heavy Metal monsters emerging from the floors. The only three points I'm handing out to ""Dark Floors"" are exclusively intended for the scenery and the adequate tension building during the first half of the film. For as long as the sinister events don't require an explanation, the atmosphere is quite creepy, but as soon as you realize the explanation will a) be very stupid or b) never come, the wholesome just collapses like an unstable house of cards. Lordi's costumes never really were scary to begin with (except maybe to traditional Eurovision fans) and, in combination with a story more reminiscent to Asian ghost-horror, they just look downright pathetic and misfit. With all the national myths and truly unique exterior filming locations, I personally always presumed Finland – The Land of a Thousand Lakes – would be the ideal breeding ground for potentially horrific horror tales, but I guess that's another disillusion on my account.",Negative "one of the best ensemble acted films I've ever seen. There isn't much to the plot, but the acting- incredible. You see the characters change ever so subtly, undr the influence of the rented villa in Italy, and love. And happiness. The film casts a mesmerizing spell on you, much as the villa does on all the women. Truly ""enchanted"".",Positive "This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.

The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.

Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.

Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word ""honour"" 1 too many times.

The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.

The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.

All in all just shy of a classic.",Positive "I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'.

I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.",Negative "I saw this film on TV many years ago and I saw this film when I got this on tape. I thought that this was reasonably well done. It was not the best of all movies, but it was good enough. The movie has enough talent to inspire many people, especially younger kids. The acting was good, with Danny Glover leading the cast. The plot line was not very believable, but the script was well written. This movie can also be the interest of avid baseball fans. It does not directly apply to a action-packed sports movie. It directly applies to a nice film that you can watch with your family and learn some messages that are hidden in this film. Overall, the film was good, but not great. I give this a movie a 7/10.",Positive "Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though.

The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination.

While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon.",Negative "There are few films that leave me with the feeling that Gregor Jordan's 'Ned Kelly' film did. Initially I had heard only half hearted recommendations, and decided to see it for myself. Since then, I have acquired both the video and soundtrack, and have to say that after several viewings, I am still very impressed with the underlying character of this film. It is also wonderful to see something Australian! I appreciate its down to earth quality, that if you ask me is a rarity, as well as the absence of tackiness that takes away from so many films. This film proves that you don't necessarily require fancy costumes and a glamorous set that absorbs how many millions of dollars to make a point. The cast was a bonus, including a variety of well known, and might I add, good looking people who did well to slip into the role of such unique characters. It is interesting to note, that much of the criticism regarding this film has been about who played what, and how they only said so many lines. However, if any criticism is due, it should constructively focus on the fact that a number of basic elements of the original events were excluded. In reality, these functioned to made it the hallmark that it is in Australian history. For example, on a closer examination it can be discovered that there was much, much more to the relationship between Joe Byrne and Aaron Sheritt, and that this was in fact responsible for many more of the final outcomes for the gang than were explored in the film. Also overlooked was the fact that it was not only Aaron Sheritt's efforts alone, that provided the Victorian police with their insights into the unfolding mystery. Yes, this is their interpretation of the story, and it is understandable that true stories require sensationalism and at times the modification of the original plot to grab the viewers attention. I feel that in this case, this is the only limitation. However, I can accept that perhaps historical accuracy is only of significance to those who have a particular interest in the realistic events behind a situation. It certainly inspired me to look more closely. So, watch it and decide for yourself. You might not like it at all, thats your opinion, and thats fine. Maybe it is a film that appeals largely to an Australian audience? For me, I'd call it a breath of fresh air!",Positive "This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends.",Positive "2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based:

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.)

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)",Negative "Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening credits—and a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standards—moderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids.",Positive "in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...

and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.

pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.

anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).

stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.",Negative "Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived ""fish out of water"" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up ""The Football Factory"" or ""Fight Club"" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old ""Yankee in King Aurthur's Court,"" or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.",Negative "This is a fair little show about the paranormal although it feels as if Art Bell and his ilk figured out how to carve a career out of the attitude that Carl Kolchak exemplified. Of course there probably wouldn't be an X-Files if this show hadn't prepped this audience for it so well. Darren McGavin is not exactly the super-heroic type but he is a plausible(enough) guy to deliver heroic deeds. Check out his work on some of those old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Here he is the main attraction, there doesn't seem to be a girlfriend or wife who's a distraction. In fact there isn't a whole lot of sex appeal to the show. Something I'm noticing as well is that the pacing isn't really suspenseful in a typical way. There's a lot of throwaway humor to this show. Sometimes its just pokey to get to the climax. There's a thread from this show coming all the way up to the present MAD MEN show in terms of style. Not that David Chase writes Mad Men but the people that worked under him on The Sopranos definitely have emulated and inherited his serio-comic tone.",Negative "Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, "" The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle"". I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!!",Positive "I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the ""time facts"" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored.",Negative "I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.

The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.

And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.

Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.

And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).

Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.

See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling

PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth.",Negative "This a rip roaring western and i have watched it many times and it entertains on every level.However if your after the true facts about such legends as Hickcock,Cody and Calamity Jane then look elsewhere, as John Ford suggested this is the west when the truth becomes legend print the legend.The story moves with a cracking pace, and there is some great dialogue between Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur two very watchable stars who help to make this movie.The sharp eyed amongst you might just spot Gabby Hayes as an Indian scout, also there is a very young Anthony Quinn making his debut as Cayenne warrior, he actually married one of Demilles daughters in real life.Indeed its Quinns character who informs Cooper of the massacre of Custer told in flash back, the finale is well done and when the credits roll it fuses the American west with American history.So please take time out to watch this classic western.",Positive "Okay, this show is nothing but AWESOME! It has a great story line and plot and great actors and actresses. Jeremy Sumpter is so hott and he is perfect for the role! He is gunna be big in Hollywood. He has a bright future ahead! This show better last a long time because I really love this show, and I hope that it has a lot of success! It is so interesting. I have been waiting for it to come out for about 6 or 7 months and it's finally here, and it's great! I tape it, too. I can watch it whenever I want now! Too bad its only on once a week though. I wish it was on at least twice a week because now I wish that it was Tuesday every day! Hope you all like this show!

~Ashley~",Positive "I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at.",Positive "This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.",Positive I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was.,Negative "One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.

Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon ""Amazing Grace"" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.

Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss (""But it's one a.m."" ""I don't care, get him on the line"") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.

Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why ""Amazing Grace"" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, ""I never told you this, but I'm proud of you."" Cue hug.",Negative "Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.

I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.

I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.",Negative "Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10!",Positive "Clark Gable plays a con man who busts into the life of hard-boiled dame Jean Harlow. He tries to sucker her while she brushes him off with her tough-gal attitude. Despite their cynicism and cons they fall in love. When Gable accidentally kills a man during a sting he runs out leaving loyal Harlow to women's prison where she discovers she's pregnant. Anita Loos' and Howard Emmett Rogers' writing is excellent throughout with many well-drawn and surprising characters (including a Jewish socialist woman inmate and a black woman inmate and her preacher father played with hardly a trace of stereotype). Gable and Harlow show their mettle as actors adding telling nuances and quirks to their characters that send them beyond the typical Gable and Harlow roles. And the direction is much better than you'd expect from Sam Wood. One beautiful shot has Harlow being inducted into the prison, then led out into a surprisingly snowy courtyard as the camera tracks after her. This is one of the best of both the ""criminals in love"" and ""women's prison"" genres and has some of the best hard-boiled dialogue ever written.",Positive "Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.",Negative "What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, ""Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now,"" as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.",Positive "Saying this movie is extremely hard to follow and just as frustrating to sit through is putting it very mildly. Also saying that the current available print is dark, dreary, scratchy, abysmally edited, painfully dubbed, seemingly censored and in almost unwatchable shape is also correct. This film is in dire need of a good remastering from the full, uncut, original negative and seeing how it's reasonably atmospheric (and won the director an award at the Catalonia Film Festival), it might actually be worth the trouble. Then again, maybe not... It's just impossible to tell in its current condition what kind of movie it actually is. It starts fairly interesting, if you can discount the completely senseless pre-credits opening sequence, which involves a deranged cat-killing, snake-loving little girl named Gerda. The girls mom, Carla (Mónica Randall, who should have laid off the eyeliner a little bit), splashes some gasoline around in the garage and torches the brat. Seemingly about as crazy as young Gerda, she goes to visit her estranged photographer (ex?) boyfriend Mario (""John""/Cihangir Caffari). He's on vacation from work, but so desperate to get away from Carla that he begs his employers to set him up on an assignment... any assignment. She scowls ""You'll be sorry!"" as he heads out the door. Well, Mario is assigned to photograph ""Witches Mountain"" (somewhere in the Pyrenees, I believe). Before he gets to his destination, he gets sight of a hottie on the beach named Delia (Patty Shepard) and snaps a few pictures of her taking off her bikini top. Only slightly peeved, she claims to be a single writer, the two flirt and then decide it would be a swell idea if they went on the trip up the mountain together. When they stop by her place so she can pack her bags, Mario suddenly hears loud, sinister music. Delia claims he's just hearing things.

So the two begin their trip up the mountain, taking a stop at a local inn to spend the night. There they encounter a weird, partially-deaf, crazy-eyed innkeeper (Victor Israel) and Delia claims someone was spying on here through her window. The next day, under some trance, she wanders off up the mountain and is eventually located by Mario, who hops out of his jeep and runs after her. While he's finding out what's up, someone steals their wheels and they're forced to walk a piece, eventually finding the jeep undamaged at the foot of a small, ancient, seeming abandoned village... almost like someone was trying to intentionally lure them there. Well as we will see, that's exactly what has happened. In the village they encounter a friendly old woman named Zanta (Ana Farra) who claims she's the only person still living there and lets them stay in her home. Mario takes some pictures of the ""abandoned"" city and when he develops them they are eerily full of people. Slightly creeped out, he and Delia begin to leave and get stuck in ""treacherous"" fog and have to pull over and camp out for the night. The rest of the movie has to do with voodoo dolls, black cats transforming into sexy women, Satanic rituals performed by ladies in their bras and a deadly fall off a cliff. And yeah, coincidentally Carla the estranged wife turns out to be one of the witches, too. It all takes place in semi-darkness and to be quite honest, I didn't know what the hell was going on most of the time. The inconclusive ""open"" ending is just an additional slap in the face to anyone having to suffer through the rest of this senseless mess.

Honestly, there are just a few things that stand out to me as being really good. The first is actress Shepard, who has that great Barbara Steele kind of dark, mysterious beauty. There's also an excellent music score (credited to Fernando Garcia Morcillo) and chanting songs, which aided immensely in making this film as atmospheric as it is. The location work is fairly decent, but as I said, the print is ugly as can be and it doesn't make a lick of sense, so proceed with caution on this one.",Negative "Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.

Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.)

'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.

The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...

Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.

At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.

This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend.",Negative "I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video.

There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.",Negative "In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.

But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.

It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.

The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof?",Negative "There is no director I like more than Mamoru Oshii. But sadly, even though he directed quite a few films that gained huge international attention, there are still a fair few of his films that have slipped through the cracks. Tachiguishi is one of them, and even though I loved it to bits, it's not hard to see why distributors in the West are somewhat reluctant to release it.

In between his big and serious films, Oshii is known to do some smaller and quirkier projects. While Tachiguishi definitely falls into this category, Oshii has really outdone himself with this one, creating something that is very hard to classify, even as a freaky Japanese flick. Go figure.

At its very core lies a documentary not quite unlike Otaku no Video. But rather than make a fool of an existing subculture, Oshii invents his own and delves into the lives of culinary heroes, scrounging away food for free and upholding the Japanese culinary level. Oshii's approach on the subject has close ties with Dai-Nipponjin, as the subject is handled with a deadly sense of gravity while the images on screen look as ridiculous as can be. Deadpan humor taken to the extreme.

But that is not all, rather than simply shooting his mockumentary Oshii decided to make it using a new visual technique baptized superlivemation. A weird mix of live action, photography, digital animation and puppets on a stick. Performed and acted out (or posed, if you want) by the greats of the Japanese animation industry no less, as the project was supposed to be as low-budget as possible.

And if you think that just about covers it, know that the film is extremely dialogue-heavy, making it a good companion piece for Innocence. The influence of the grifters is analyzed from all kinds of cultural, political and even philosophical angles, fired at the audience through a continuous stream of monologues and dialogues. And to make it even worse, the whole film is completely grounded in actual Japanese history and customs, making it even harder for a foreigner to get a good grip on the material. Needless to say, multiple viewings are advised to make the best of all the details tucked away inside the film.

That said, on a conceptual level the film is easy to follow and already pretty hilarious. Various grifters are introduced as were they the most influential historical figures of post-war Japan. The film plays like you'd expect a serious documentary of any other important figure to unfold, but somehow the big and crudely animated cut-out photography limbs of which figures are assembled don't quite make it all that serious. The range of characters introduced is sublime, Shinji Higuchi taking the cake as cow-creature wearing a nose ring while taking on the fast-food chains with his gang of bull/people.

Oshii regular Kenji Kawai provides, besides a pretty comical performance, a score ranging from atmospheric and dark to wacky, strange and comical. A lot of fun is to be had from the exaggerated noises and effects, complementing the animation and totally contradicting the tone of the rest of the film.

Visually the film is very atmospheric, though it must be said that the animation is pretty scarce and while effective, remains toned down, only to burst out in hyperactive weirdness from time to time. Which is not exactly a bad thing, seeing how Tachiguishi is so dialogue-heavy. Despite that, the film is still a visual masterpiece as each frame looks absolutely lush and is tailored to match and improve the general atmosphere of the film.

Beware though, because Tachiguishi does demand a lot from the viewer. If you don't speak Japanese, there is a lot of reading to be done and there are many cultural references that demand some attention. On top of that, the monologues in the film area quite extended and can be hard to follow. The film still lacks English subtitles and even though my French was largely sufficient to get what it was all about, I'm sure I missed many of the finer points of the film.

Tachiguishi is not an easy film to get into, but around halfway through it reaches full steam and it doesn't let off from there on. I still hope to see this one again with English or Dutch subs. A dub would actually be best for a film like this (much like Container), though I guess a quality anime dub is a bit too much to ask for.

With all of that said, I can only congratulate Oshii on another marvelous film. It's rare to find a film that blends and mixes so many styles and influences to create something that is so unique and still works. The film is smart, looks and sounds great and is filled to the brim with creativity. It is immensely funny, even if you can't catch all the details on the first viewing. But be sure to at least get this with decent subs, as the automated English translation that is floating out there is completely worthless and does the film no justice at all.

Tachiguishi caters to a very specific audience and I'm not surprised the French got their release while the rest of Europe (and the rest of the Western world) is still waiting for a sign of this film. But for those that like Oshii, appreciate dry and deadpan humor and crave creative spirits, it is a film that cannot be missed, even though it could just as well misfire. 4.5*/5.0*",Positive "This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him.",Positive "An Insomniac's Nightmare was an incredibly interesting, well-made film. I loved the way it just throws you into the main character's subconscious without coddling the viewer...the acting was top notch - honestly, I would watch Dominic Monaghan read the phone book! - but everyone else, especially the young girl, was great as well. I was very impressed by the look of the film, too. Usually, ""independent films"" have a grainy, I-shot-this-on-my-camcorder look to them, but this director knows what she's doing. The lighting, the cinematography...quality work. I'm looking forward to a feature-length work from Tess Nanavati!",Positive "This is a really fun, breezy, light hearted romantic comedy. You cannot go wrong with Meg Ryan's cute perkiness combined with Albert Einstein's genius. Normally, I'm not a fan of completely fabricated fictional tales about actual people, now deceased and not able to defend themselves, but I think the late Einstein might himself have gotten a chuckle out of this one.

It's the 1950's...Princeton, New Jersey in the spring. The story revolves around a pretty, young, scatter brained mathematician, Catherine (Meg Ryan), who is all set to marry a stuffy jerk, a behavioral researcher named James, merely because he has the brains she's looking for in the father of her future children. However, it's love at first sight when her car breaks and she meets an auto mechanic named Ed (Tim Robbins). As she doesn't think Ed is intelligent enough, her uncle, none other than Albert Einstein, plays match maker, assisted in his endeavors by three mischievous cronies, all theoretical physicists. Uncle Albert must make Ed appear suitably smart, so concocts a charade portraying him as a physicist...naturally with amusing results.

Walter Matthau is his usual hilarious self, and pulls off the character of Einstein quite effectively. With his three professorial buddies, Kurt, Nathan, and Boris, a lot of laughs ensue. The real Einstein had a genuine human side and this film just takes it one (outrageous) step further. If you suspend all logic, you can almost imagine this silly story happening!

It might not be rocket science (despite its main character) but it is a wonderful sweet, refreshing movie. One of the best of the comedy romance genre.",Positive "This is one seriously disturbed movie. Even Though the boys deserved some of what they got.....the sadistic gruesome executions were ""slightly"" over the top. The only character showing some conscience early in the hunt was killed off before he could offer some help to the sad plot.

At the beginning of the movie, there looked to be some promise of a mediocre affair, but this was just a ploy to lull the viewers into a false sense of security, before the joy of what was to come.

The only thing that could have saved the movie for me was if Jack Nicholson had jumped out of the bushes and yelled, ""and, where is the batman?"". Kim Basinger could have screamed.

Now that would have been cool!",Negative "I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.",Negative "If you go to this movie expecting something it isn't, you will be disappointed, as with any movie. This movie contains what Hemmingway described as the ""iceberg effect"". On the surface, its simply a cache of random movie clips smashed together to make a movie. If this would be written in a book, it would be a short story, because the action in the movie is very fast paced, and unless you actually try to catch it, the reasoning behind the plot (along with some subtle foreshadowing) can very well pass you by. Definitely a movie you will have to see twice in order to fully appreciate. Experimental Cinematography barely describes this movie. The camera-work and post production add much to the overall flavour of the film, making it quite artistic at some points and open to interpretation at others (something to be desired in American movies as of late). Although, at some parts it may get a little raunchy, gruesome and too heavy for some audiences, the movie never becomes completely unrealistic. The only aspect of the movie that I would write off as ""needs improvement"" is the soundtrack selection. No movie is ever good without a fitting soundtrack, and although the soundtrack is quite fitting, the opening is a little too long, and the other rap songs in the film really could have been replaced with something more appropriate (heavy, grungy rock or psychedelic electronica would have made this film a real trip). The flooding of imagery and dynamic... color palettes adds another ""artistic"" aspect to it, also combined with the events that happen throughout the film, this is not a movie you can miss any part of and still understand. However, that also makes it much more of a desirable film to watch, and not one you'll quickly get bored of. 8.5/10",Positive "...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually ""fabulous"" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it",Positive "I love cheesy horror flicks. I don't care if the acting is sub-par or whether the monsters look corny. I liked this movie except for the bewildered feeling all the way from the beginning of the film to the very end. Look, I don't need a 10 page dissertation or a sign with big letters explaining a plot to me. But Dark Floors takes the ""what is this movie about?"" thing to a whole new (annoying) level. What IS this movie about?

This isn't exceptionally scary or thrilling but if you have an hour and a half to kill and/or you want to end up feeling frustrated and confused, rent this winner.",Negative "First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of ""melting"" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.",Negative "This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.

Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is.",Positive "I found about the movie ""Holes"" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. ""Holes"" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended!",Positive "Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later ""Howling"" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves ""above"" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, ""hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?""

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try ""An American Werewolf in London"", the original ""The Howling"", ""Dog Soldiers"", or even ""The Wolfen"" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.",Negative "I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.",Negative "So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.

This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.

It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home.

What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as ""Herbie Goes Bananas"" and ""the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes"" when it comes to innovation?

I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window.",Negative "I went to see this movie with my 17 y.o. daughter. I insisted we go the matinée showing, not because I'm a tightwad, but just feeling I had. In the NASCAR spirit, this is a sponser's dream. SO much blatant advertising, it almost qualifies as an info-mercial, if it weren't for the so-called acting. Keeping with tradition, the Herbie franchise continues with its cheesy story lines, the car is only a 'vehicle' (no pun intended)for this cornball of a motion picture. Earlier Herbie installments (although cheesy as well) were produced during more serious times, making them a little easier to digest. Ms. Lohan, Disney's reigning drama queen, has little acting ability. I was surprised that Mr. Keaton and Mr. Dillon would get involved in such a project. Only the snack bar, was a bigger ripoff!",Negative "Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say ""two thumbs up"".",Positive "How powerful and captivating simple quality filmmaking can be. This film tells it's tale with everyday scenes that manage to revel the poignancy hidden within. It's true as others have stated, how this film really makes it glaringly obvious how lost Hollywood is in it's special effects, overblown emotionalism and over the top climatic endings and have forgotten the essence of a meaningful story told with simple realism. So much of what these characters are going through is implied by the scene rather than spelled out in wordy dialogue. One aspect that I really enjoyed about the film was the contrast of the two brothers, one so very openly expressive in his childlike way and the other completely stoic but both able to evoke deep emotion. The older brother needed to say little, as he usually did, it was all there in that deadpan face of his! Beautiful cinematography, wonderful acting, great direction! Not to be missed!",Positive "This rip off of the 1984 hit ""Gremlins"" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.

It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.

This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.

Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.

The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.

WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering ""What?"". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals ""What he learned in the military"" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.

The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind.",Negative "I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.

That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be ""at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard"".",Negative "***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the ""good"" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his ""fury"" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his ""it's a hostile takeover"" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original ""Rage and Honor,"" Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a ""2"" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).",Negative "A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does ""reconcile"" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing ""live"" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie.",Positive "This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!

The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.",Negative "We saw the silent version of this film, and it is quite simply shimmeringly beautiful. It's quite hard to see how a sound version could have been created, since it is shot with pure silent technique, long wordless sweeps of narrative without a single intertitle -- save for a few disconcerting sequences where Louise Brooks, playing a French typist, is quite visibly speaking in English... The only section that obviously cries out for sound is the final scene, where Brooks is watching the rushes for her test 'for a sound film': footage which plays constantly in the background as the action unfolds, with her mouth moving in ceaseless soundless song. I was unsurprised to learn afterwards that this passage alone in the talkie version had been hailed as an exemplar of new technique!

In the sunny beauty of its opening scenes and the fairy-tale inevitability of what follows, the film resembles a dream. As a 'Louise Brooks movie' it was not at all what I was expecting, either from her Hollywood comedies or from G.W.Pabst's German melodramas: I found the idiom more fluent and enjoyable than either, and Brooks herself is a different creature, a sturdy laughing young animal rather than a shop-window vamp or manipulated doll.

But what gives this film greater depth than at first appears is the unexpected second half; repelled by the rich parasites who cluster around her beauty, the pauper princess returns to a tear-stained reunion with her humbly-born true love... and the tale might very well have been ended there. Fairy-tale, however, turns to tragedy. The dilettante Grabovsky, confident in his ability to manipulate the woman he desires, is yet all too correct in his self-interested prediction -- the young lovers cannot make each other happy -- and André, ironically, was right to mistrust the social influence of beauty contests: after the intoxication of her moment's glory, Lucienne frets herself to despair over the humdrum routine of married life while her husband, in turn, is driven wild by any reminder of the whole affair. If it were a simple case of a mis-matched marriage, that would be one thing... but the true tragedy is that they do love each other.

In many ways ""Prix de Beauté"" reminds me of Murnau's ""Sunrise"". But if so, the fairground and photographer scenes here would form a distorted mirror-image of the joyous reconciliation in ""Sunrise""; no dream but an alienating nightmare. And the following dawn brings not a miraculous reunion but an empty bed and deserted home. Leaving a letter to say that she loves him and will always love him, Lucienne vanishes again from André's life in quest of brightness and freedom; and this time she will never come back.

Gossip columns confirm all André's worst convictions, as he learns of his wife's whereabouts through reports coupling her name with Grabovsky. When the young workman penetrates at last to the lavish sanctum of the screening-room, it is with drawn gun -- to be greeted by the sight of his rival courting and caressing a laughing Lucienne, the same woman who had pledged her undying affection as she left him. He kills her, but even as he kills is transfixed by the living image on screen, Lucienne in all her transformed glory as he never saw her. The two women are juxtaposed in an endless, powerful moment, as André is seen, seized, unresisting, and pulled away: the dying girl and her singing self still projected above, caught unknowing out of time into celluloid eternity, playing on unconscious of life or death or love beneath her...

The main jarring element in the film is the character of André's co-worker Antonin, who appears to serve no role throughout other than to be the licensed butt of his contemporaries' malice. He is the ugly one who can never get the girl, the ungainly wimp who is tripped and tormented in the washrooms and at work, and must take it all with an uncertain ingratiating smile in his fruitless hope for social acceptance: a typical product of the bullying of the more gifted and popular, in other words, but one the audience is apparently being invited to laugh at along with his tormentors. Unless the intention is to expose a darker side to the protagonists (for which I perceive no sign), the character seems to exist merely as comic relief, but comic relief with a distinctly nasty edge. When we know him only as an inept Peeping Tom at the waterside, it's easy to laugh, although the others' revenge seems a little over the top; when we discover that he is no chance-met stranger but André's colleague and regular sidekick, the continuing attacks rapidly cease to be very funny.

But it is the images that remain. Beauty, nightmare, and dream.",Positive "Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which ""The Lonely Lady"" was promoted ""back in the day,"" could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.",Negative "OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... ""oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.."" And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!",Negative "This was a gem. Amazing acting from the leads Liam Cunningham, Orla Brady and all the supporting cast. The movie raises a subject not only pertinent to Ireland and Irish history but to many communities around the world and many marriage units within those communities. With intensity and sincerity the movie shows how the religious convictions and traditions drove a wedge on a loving and passionate family. The title ""Love divided"" couldn't capture it any better. Even though it was a true story and happening in Ireland of the 50th seeing how the life of the whole village erodes and ""pogroms"" are starting reminded me of Russian history. The intolerance and prejudice are still too powerful in the world and unfortunately it's deeply hidden inside the human nature. Just like in the movie the Liam Cunningham's character says ""the hatred had always been there under the surface"". It was interesting to watch the moral choices people were making in this story. Also the character of a catholic priest and what happened to him in the end of the story was quite meaningful. The story however gives hope that love of two people can conquer everything and love makes us better, stronger. Liam Cunningham's character goes through the whole transformation in the course of the story becoming a man he always wanted to be. Again acting is a top notch. Story is fast-paced. Irish countryside is as beautiful as ever. Highly recommended.",Positive "This film has a rotting core of flexible morality, and yet a quirky sense of justice. So many of the regular Joes among us would love to ""stick it to the MAN"". The ""MAN"" in this case is represented by several different characters. Mr. Keller, who Carla reports to at her office. Later, Paul owes 70 large to Mr. Marchand the club owner. And then there is Paul's Parole Officer. There seems to be so much question about this last character's side story. Reviewers point it out as a weakness in an otherwise well crafted subterranean game of ping-pong between our two protagonists, escalating tit-for-tat until their lives change dramatically. They are beholden to each agent of the ""MAN"". One or both could be fired, killed, or imprisoned if they don't do as they are told.

The film has a sense of relief at the end. Carla finally gets laid. Her boss is forced out for being a jerk. Mr. Club Owner is a pulpy mess in his own bathroom. They get the $money$. And... they need not worry about reporting in to the Parole Officer, because HIS moral weakness leads him to stash his wandering wife in the basement (or whatever the police found to arrest him). It is a critical subconscious trigger to the lock tumbler that wound us up so tight. Never mind that someone else may get Paul's file later to supervise his release; for the moment they are free! They might even get away with it!

Woohoo...

They STUCK IT TO THE MAN!",Positive "How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.

If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.

The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.

Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.

While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.

Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.

I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.",Negative "So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending.",Negative "You don't need to read this review.

An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.

Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.

The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.

I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House.

This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.

The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.

Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.

It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.

Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.

Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.

Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.

The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.

It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.

This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.

The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.

A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.

Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.

Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.

This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.",Positive "Taking a break from his escapist run in the early '80s, Steven Spielberg directed Whoopi Goldberg in an adaptation of Alice Walker's ""The Color Purple"", about about the desperate existence of an African-American woman in the 1930s. Watching Goldberg play Celie, it's incredible that this is the same woman who starred in movies like ""Sister Act"". This is the sort of movie that could easily be - no, make that SHOULD BE - part of the curriculum in Black Studies and Women's Studies. There's one scene that may be the most magnificent editing job that's ever been on screen (you'll know it when you see it). I can't believe that this didn't win a single Oscar; it may be Spielberg's second best movie behind ""Schindler's List"" (maybe even tied with it). Also starring Danny Glover, Adolph Caesar, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey, Willard E. Pugh, Akosua Busia, and Laurence Fishburne.",Positive "This is complete and absolute garbage, a fine example of what a BAD movie is like, this can't be appealing to anyone, not even b-movie fans. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste precious time of your life on this piece of trash. Bad acting, bad directing, horrible (but I mean really horrible) script, and complete lack of an idea as to what entertainment (of any form) is. I bought the DVD for 3 dollars, I swear I could almost pay someone to take it. Burning it would not be enough for what this movie did to me. I like b-movies, the killer toys, the weird lagoon monsters, but this is nowhere near. You know those movies that are so bad they are funny? Not even. Just plain old pathetic.",Negative "This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put ""The Living Legend,part1 and 2"",and ""Fire in space"" together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer.",Positive "Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling.",Positive "This was the best Muppet movie I've seen ever! I happen to know that Miss Piggy's fantasy of meeting as infants was the cause of Muppet Babies. The songs will remain in my head forever. Only saying so because that stupid Nickelodeon show Hey Dude song still remains in my head. Sorry, a little off the topic there. But anyway what I like is Animal after the credits saying ""Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Hasta Luego!"" That made me laugh so hard. My absolute favorite is the play at the end. I was surprised that the Sesame Street characters popped in at the wedding. I'm just glad this movie was very entertaining. I borrowed it from the library, and now I have bought it because I can't keep the library's copy forever. In conclusion, I proclaim this is the best movie I've ever seen! In my case, it's even better than Austin Powers in Goldmember, which was my favorite movie!",Positive "Poor performances by Sinatra, Martin and Hyer. Grossly underdeveloped supporting characters. Annoying talky with no real plot. Ending leaves you flatter than a pancake, with more loose ends than you could tie up in four sequels (that is, if you even cared about these wooden characters). MacLaine is the only real asset. That penultimate sequence in which the ""Chicago hood"" searches for the Sinatra character is laughable. The music in that sequence also is poor. And in the final scene when Martin's character removes his hat for the woman he called a ""pig,"" almost made me go outside and find a stone to throw through my television screen.",Negative "I expected a bad movie, and got a bad movie. But I couldn't really imagine in my worst fantasy how bad this movie was. I don't even want to try to explain what Blood Surf is about. Is not about blood surfing, but a big a$$ crocodile. They are complaining about the fake shark in Jaws, but Spielberg was wise and didn't show the shark until the end. Here the crocodile is shown a lot of times, and it's the worst fake crocodile I have ever seen, and they don't try to hide it. If you want to see a good fake crocodile watch Lake Placid.

The director had an opportunity to make a decent surf/shark movie, but he had to make a bad b-monster movie. He had the chance to make an original surf movie, but he wanted to make a monster movie. So you have understand how bad this movie is, does it have some good parts? Not really, it got some nudity, and a sex scene that is taken straight out of a playboy movie. The acting isn't half bad either, and Kate Fischer looks good. Too bad she doesn't take her top off. The lead actors aren't bad either. They had some potential. The location was beautiful and the movie start good with some nice surf scenes. The blame is on the untalented writer and director. The dialogue is some of the worst I have ever seen, and the script is really badly written, and the director got no talent what so ever, and not much of a fantasy either.

Don't watch it. Even if you want to watch the beautiful Kate Fischer. It isn't worth it. Watch Sirens to watch Kate nude, and watch Lake Placid if you want some good crocodile action.

3/10 because I'm in a good mood, and Maureen Larrazabal looks good naked, and Kate looks good (but is bad actress,)and Dex Miller, Joel West and Matt Borlenghi did a good job with the piece of sh#t they had to work with.",Negative This is the only David Zucker movie that does not spoof anything the first of its kind. The funniest movie of 98 with Night at the Roxbury right behind But I did not think Theres something about mary was funny so that doesnt count except for the frank and beans thing he he. Dont listen to the critics especially Roger Ebert he does not know solid entertainment just look at his reviews.Anyway see it you wont be dissapionted,Positive "Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.

Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.

After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....

This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.",Negative "I saw this movie at the 18th Haifa film festival, and it is one of the best I've seen this year. Seeing it on a big screen (and I mean BIG, not one of those TV screens most cinemas have) with an excellent sound system always enhance the cinematic experience, as the movie takes over your eyes and ears and sucks you into the story, into the picture.

The movie presents a set of characters, which are loosely inter-connected. Their stories cross at certain points, and the multiplicity of story lines reminded me very much of the great Robert Altman and his exquisite films. But the true hero of the movie is obviously the city of Madrid, which provides the backdrop for the entire movie. It houses the characters, contains the pavements and roads on which they walk, and sets the background atmosphere for all the events, all in beautifully filmed scenes.

The movie returns again and again to certain themes (shoes, for instance), and in essence Salazar makes his metaphores more and more understandable to the viewer as the movie progresses. He combines the views of the city with the shots of the characters, and elegantly matches the feeling of the scene to the background. A set of talented actors helps him portrait a wide variety of characters. One excellent example is the scene in which Juaquin takes Anita across the street for the first time. It might not work on a small screen, but it gave me goose bumps easily on a big screen.

The message of the movie is very positive, and accordingly the movie is light and funny at times. The music along the movie is usually pop, with a few instrumental pieces (I hope to put my hand on the soundtrack one day, although I seriously doubt I will).

All together, I came out of this movie with a sensational feeling, and I'm not easily impressed (you'll have to take my word for it). For this and more I give this movie a solid 8/10.",Positive "Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent!

Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries … but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicãa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best.

The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward!

A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain!

Don't miss this one people!",Positive "This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought ""Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!"" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?",Negative "After you see Vertigo, then watch Bell, Book and Candle, made within months of each other.

My second favorite Kim Novak film, with Picnic, coming in as third.

All three performances are great, Vertigo, being the best, of all.

They came to my nowhere Kansas Prairie town, near by, at Salina, Kansas in the 50s, to film, Picnic.

Bell, Book and Candle's musical score, I believe is one of Alex North's. Perfect for this bit of comedy.

After Vertigo, Stewart and Novak, did this comedy, how amusing to note the dramatic contrast.

Worth your time, if you like Kim Novak. The Greta Garbo of my youth.",Positive "Joshua Seftel's first film - a satire of memorable proportions - is about just as the title suggests: The corporations effect on War.

The film is about a mercenary (John Cusack) traveling to Turaqistan (not a real country, fyi) to help the American government 'get their message across' to Turaqistan's leaders. He meets a reporter (Marisa Tomei) and we all know what will ensue with a lonely man + a hot reporter. Somewhere in the mix, a pop star named Yonica Babyyeah gets thrown in. As Yonica is marrying one of Turaquistan's most important people (a son of the president), a subplot is created where the mercenary must watch over this star, well, somewhat. The film starts off with a lonely Cusack in a bar; no more than fifteen seconds later, the film hooks you. With it's amusing and intriguing insight on terrorism and politics, the film's running time blows by you. The film has a lot more action than I expected, with the occasional scene of war, well choreographed fights and just sporadic scenes of murder. Though the story isn't much deep, the simplicity of it all makes the film perfect for both the common man and movie critics alike.

In the final act of the film, the simplicity of it all turns very hostile and jumbled. I thought it was executed very well, but other may disagree, and I could understand why. Twist after twist is what the ending is all about, and like most films, it is a true hit/miss situation. Regardless, the three writers on the film (Mark Leyner, Jeremy Pikser & John Cusack) did a fantastic job creating a realistic and entertaining satire on today's situation overseas.

Joshua Seftel does an excellent job insuring the film's integrity; not reducing the material to the most redundant of films (which I was afraid would happen). Seftel crafted the film as perfectly as one could: he created a vibrant atmosphere, one that is both examines harsh reality and cartoonish falsities; - contrasting them perfectly - as well as making the film feel as if you were watching it all. Seftel really gets you involved in all of the action and it pays off completely. No missteps here. Hopefully, he takes on more directorial jobs, for he is one director to look out for.",Positive "What a crime...

You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.

But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..

Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.

Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.",Negative "I saw this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought ""What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).

So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.

Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.

I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.

Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.

P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film.",Positive "A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10.",Positive "Hilarious film. I saw this film at the 2002 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival, and laughed from start to finish. The acting was subtle but very funny. I'm not entirely certain about ""The Real World"" influence, we don't get that here, but the film holds up without the understanding of that show. Heather B steals every scene she appears in, most notably when acting with her seldom talkative red co-star. Highly recommended. I'd love to see this released on Video/DVD some time in the future.",Positive This Movie has great fight scenes. Now its true that the acting is a little rough. But If I wanted to see a movie based on acting skills I would watch a Cheesy movie Like American Beauty. But If you want to see a movie with true martial arts in it and with Amazing stunts WITHOUT the use of wires and flying threw the air like so many movies around now which are over killing the matrix. Then Watch this. Now it's true the two main stars in the show where in the kid show the power rangers and another cast member of that show has a bit part in this movie. But hey the fight scenes are enough to make Jet Li p**s his pants. And the stunts are worthy enough for Jackie Chan to sit threw and admire.,Positive "This interesting documentary tells a remarkable tale of an expedition to take blind Tibetan children trekking in the Himalayas; but also of a personality clash between two remarkable people. On one hand, there is Erik Weihenmeyer, the first blind man to climb Everest, and the team of (sighted) mountaineers who are guiding the kids. On the other, there is Sabriye Tenberken, a blind woman who runs the first school for blind Tibetans, who agrees to the expedition but subsequently has doubts about how it is progressing. At some level, Sabine simply doesn't understand the mountaineer's philosophy (with it's emphasis on summitting); she is probably right in identifying the mismatch between the mountaineers goals and the desires of the children but her certainty in her own correctness makes her a hard person to sympathise with, especially as she has an effective veto. In the background to this (reasonably well-mannered) clash, we get an insight into the lives of the children themselves. I enjoyed the film, although it delivers a message clearly designed to be uplifting - even though it details the quarrel, the film somewhat relentlessly asserts how amazing all those who feature in it are. But it's hard to argue with that assessment, even if it is presented to the viewer somewhat unsubtly.",Positive "I cannot begin to describe how amazing this movie is. Suffice it to say, anytime I'm depressed about how unfair or futile things seem, this is the movie I go rent to put me in the right frame of mind. The background music makes you realize the easiness of existence and how simplicity provides for the greatest happiness. The Indian girl that sings is but one example of a character in this film who does not try hard, and is happy as a result. Persifina, the laundry co-worker of Ruby's (Ashley Judd) is another=-her eyes and smile could make the hardest person's day. I watch this movie and I dream of better days to come or of a good conversation with friends, and I realize that being alone--Ruby is alone quite often--isn't the same as being lonely. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a thoughtful lull of a movie.",Positive "Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in ""Brigadoon"" gets insulting after awhile.

As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much

Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they ""go on location"" most of the time.",Negative "This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than ""Before Sunset"", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is ""love"" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes ""Before Sunrise"" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch ""Before Sunrise"" before watching ""Before Sunset"". If like me, you watched ""Sunset"" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.",Positive "It was a serious attempt to show the developing sexuality of two schoolgirls and did not try to exploit its fact… Even by today's standards, the film is interesting and provocative…

Therese and Isabelle are both attending the same girl's school… Therese is energetic, intelligent, and becomes a mentor for the innocent, naive, sweet Isabelle… She guides her through a number of exotic experiences, including a trip through an exclusive brothel, into her first lesbian liaison, and indirectly into her first heterosexual experience…

The film does not exploit any sex, nor is there an abundance of nudity... The imagery is effective, but sometimes the camera lingers too long, and the story goes slowly…

The director, Radley Metzger, went on to make a number of explicit erotic films under the name of Henry Paris… He always has extremely detailed stories, good acting, and very high standards of cinematography...

Artistically, however, this is perhaps his most complete… His later attempts supplied for entertainment, whereas ""Therese and Isabelle"" was a study into the nature of youthful eroticism...",Positive "Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.

Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.

Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!

I Give this one a perfect 10!",Positive "Tourists head to Ireland for a school trip to learn about Druids. What they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers.

If I had to sum up Evil Breed, it would be a low grade gore fest. The film mixes Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Wrong Turn all in one. It's just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any ""fun"" one would have watching it. The film has lots of random ""horror"" nudity...although the film also stars four porn stars, yup four, so there could have been plenty more. Breed also showcases a good amount of gore.

Evil Breed has a horrible start, with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. That's a given in a straight to video horror film, but this takes the cake. I can't really figure out who the main character is, since the one female who ""lives"" at the end is not really in the movie all that much. Speaking of the ending, that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. It has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one's view of the film.

You have to see this film to believe it, since there are some pretty great death scenes. There are two death scenes that come into my mind, one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest....yea her chest, don't ask me. The other id when the guy gets his intestines, yet again, ripped out through his asshole. Does that kill the guy? No, the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. These scenes remind me so much of Dead-Alive, with the right amount of humour in each. I also got the sense of Evil Dead, with the pointless mentions of horror films and Sam Raimi. Along with Halloween, when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately;y to get in.

Although, the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. When the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs, her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. Distracting indeed. As well as the continuity in the film, with only one inbred killer? As well as which character dies at which moment. I couldn't tell if the breast implant chick was Jenny or Gary's sister/cousin...I can't remember. As well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body, still attached with the umbilical cord.

The horrible editing is distracting as well, the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. It did have a bad start and got better, but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. If maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film, then it wouldn't have been horribly butchered to death. Stay away from this film, unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.",Negative "This movie is a pathetic attempt, apparently, to justify the actions of Mary Ann Letourneau. In order to do this, they cast a 19-year-old -well, probably not ""in order to do this."" There was no way they could have cast a 12 or 13 year old as the boy because the love scenes would have grossed everyone out (if they had even been allowed to do them) - as they should. Mary Ann's boyfriend was my nephew's age, making her a pedophile. Sixth grade, people. The definition of pedophile doesn't have to include many children - all you need is one.

I really don't care about her upbringing or her unhappy marriage. She had a responsibility to her students that she did not live up to. The reason given is that she is bipolar, rejected the diagnosis, and refused to take her medication. It's understandable, then, that she was not thinking rationally. One hopes that she now understands her actions.

Now that she and Vili are married and have two children together, I pray that she is on her medication and thinking clearly.

All that aside, Penelope Ann Miller was totally convincing and perfect casting for the role.",Negative "Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*

I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.

The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.

Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?

If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously.

This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.

Respect",Negative "With a movie called ""Gayniggers from Outer Space"" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.

The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.",Negative "this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.

the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.

i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.

the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.

no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings...",Negative "This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE!",Negative "I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.

The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.

Congratulations to the Producer !",Positive "After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers.

We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.

The main character did have a cool bike.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.",Negative "While visiting Romania with his CIA dad, Tony(Adam Arkin), quite a talented high school quarterback seen as the savior to lead his team finally to a victory over rival Simpson, is told by a would-be palm-reader(..in Romania, the people are not allowed many books, so she took up palm reading)that he would be bitten by a werewolf(""When the moon is full, don't make any appointments..you will be busy.""). Well, who would have thunk it..Tony is in fact bitten and his life would be forever changed. After his father unfortunately dies in a mishap within his bomb shelter(!)under odd circumstances(firing at his werewolf son inside a metallic bomb shelter isn't a very good idea, especially if the bullet doesn't leave the room and bounces around like a pinball gone berserk), Tony travels the land through endless years, until he's tired of packing, and returns decades(..and many US Presidents)later to hopefully lead his football team to a win over Simpson..a task he abandoned long ago. What was once a very white, clean-cut high school has indeed changed into a ghetto of drug use, violence, and perversion. To get an idea of what the early 80's Full Moon High school's prom party resembles, think Studio 54 with teenagers..

Larry Cohen's parody of werewolf flicks, among others things, is crammed full of gags, homages, and in-jokes. My favorite sequences contain one in the sex-ed classroom where Tony reveals to the 80's class his werewolf transformation and the introductory scene to Dr. Brand(Alan Arkin, who steals the film when Kenneth Mars isn't on screen), quite possibly the worst psychiatrist on Earth. His task to talk down a jumper leads to two men falling off a balcony..the jumper and a fireman (trying, at first, to talk him out of it), both fuming mad at Brand! Brand even tries to get Tony to sign a waver for his body's being donated to science so he can get his wife a fur coat! Kenneth Mars had me rolling in the floor as a homosexual football coach(..and later in the 80's as the Principal)who likes to pat his players on the behind..his scene where Tony's unloading the truth to the sex-ed class is classic. The film is loaded with inspired casting choices..just littered with funny characters and the cast interpretations..such as Ed McMahon as a very conservative military blowhard who actually looks identical to Joseph McCathy standing next to his photo in the bomb shelter(..always talking about commies), Joanne Nail as bulging eyed Ricky in present day who falls for the werewolf, Elizabeth Hartman(A Patch of Blue)as a mousy, nerdy sexually molested(..and molester)teacher who finds an attraction towards Tony, James Dixon as a deputy(..his great scene has him stealing a line from his police chief reciting it to Dr. Brand who begins mouthing the words to himself for memorization), Roz Kelly as Jane, an undyingly devoted female desiring Tony for only herself constantly demanding he ravish her, and Bill Kirchenbauer as Flynn, Tony's long-time pal and now the police chief who only got Jane after his friend left town. Can not forget JM J Bullock as Flynn's closeted gay son trying to fit in at the school hoping to find a dame with hilarious results.

I like how the film pays homage to the werewolf genre such as when he's on the prowl..he's often referred to in the papers as Jack the Nipper because he likes to bite his victims on the cheek..and I'm not talking face. He's seen more as an annoyance than danger. The homages to Carrie and Psycho are nice, and the violin shtick is also amusing. Cohen tosses so many zingers at the viewer, eventually one has to stick. Obviously in a comedy such as this, not every joke hits it's mark, but many do. The cast makes this worthwhile. The film looks cheap on the typical Larry Cohen budget. Notice the 50's scenes where the obvious old cast members that would show up down the road wear glaring wigs. Loved Adam in the lead..he is the perfect foil for the gags that follow him and the zingers he lets fly from Cohen's script. The film moves quickly, rarely catching a breath. I liked this horror comedy more than most it seems.",Positive "This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a ""monk"", and how anyone identifies this thing as a ""monk"" is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad....",Positive "In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like ""Silverado"" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!",Negative "Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...

This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.

Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.

Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time.",Negative "The plot is tight. The acting is flawless. The directing, script, scenery, casting are all well done. I watch this movie frequently, though I don't know what it is about the whole thing that grabs me. See it and drop me a line if you can figure out why I like it so much.",Positive "waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }",Negative "One thing about Hollywood, someone has a success and it's always rushed to be copied. And another thing is that players give some of their best performances away from their home studio.

Rock Hudson got such accolades for his performance in the Texas based film Giant that Universal executives must have thought, let's quick get him into another modern Texas setting.

Similarly Robert Stack got great reviews for The High and the Mighty as the pilot who was cracking under the strain of flying a damaged aircraft that it was natural to give him another crack up role.

Both of these ends were achieved in Written on the Wind. Before Hudson was the big ranch owner, now he's the son of a hunting companion of Robert Stack's father who took Hudson under his wing. In other words the James Dean part without the James Dean racism from Giant.

Lauren Bacall is the executive secretary of an advertising agency that Stack's Hadley Oil Company uses. Hudson likes her, but she's dazzled by Stack's millions and when he woos a girl he's got the means to really pursue a campaign. She marries Stack.

And last but not least in the mix we have Dorothy Malone who's Stack's amoral sister who has a yen for Rock, but Rock ain't about to get tangled up with this wild child.

Dorothy Malone spent over 10 years in a whole bunch of colorless film heroine roles before landing this gem. She got a Best Supporting Actress Award for her part as Marilee Hadley and it was well deserved.

If you like splashy technicolor Fifties soap opera than this is the film for you.",Positive "Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot.",Negative "Does any one know what the 2 sports cars were? I think Robert Stack's might have been a Masseratti.Rock Hudson's character told his father he was taking a job in Iraq ,isn't that timely? I have had Dorthy Malone in my spank bank most of my life ,maybe this was the film that impressed me.Loren Bacall sure did have some chops in this film and probably out-acted Malone but Malones's part made a more sensational impact so she got the Oscar for best supporting role.Was Loren's part considered a leading role?Old man Hadley character was was probably a pretty common picture of tycoons of his era in that he was a regular guy who made it big in an emerging industry but in building a whole town he had forgotten his children to have his wife bring them up.In time,being widowed he realized that they were all he really had and they were spoiled rotten,looking for attention,so rather than try to relate to his children he blew his head off.An ancient morality tale.But seriously,what were those sports cars?",Positive "Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of ""La Pianiste"" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.

Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, ""La Pianiste"" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)

Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.

Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson.

",Negative "This is one of the most brilliant movies that I have seen in recent times. Goes way above even any international movie of any repute. I am really surprised why this has not received the recognition it deserved. Sonali Kulkarni winning the National Award is perhaps the only consoling fact. Renuka Daftardar simply amazes as she speaks volumes through her eyes. There are a few scenes that stand out: When Gauri comes back from the city on Krishna's wedding, she and Krishna meet for the first time in many years. Krishna notices a change in Gauri, but not a single line of dialogue is said. The entire gamut of emotions is conveyed through subtle mannerisms and the eyes. There's another towards the end when Krishna pleads to Abhay Kulkarni to marry Gauri instead. If you are not moved by that scene, you don't have a heart.

Watch this movie for sheer movie-making brilliance and acting capabilities.",Positive "One of the best movies out there. Yeah maybe the cinematography wasn't the greatest, but an excellent plot and concept. Great for the time and brilliant and creative ideas. Something different from the usual movies and great fun. One of my favorites and would recommend to anyone who likes creative and imaginative movies. Post World War 3 and fighting in gigantic robots, the actors gave a great performance and made it all worth while. The sets are not amazing, but simple and worked for the overall look of the film. This movie is very hard to find on DVD, but also on VHS. Check it out cause I have loved it since it came out. Not a mainstream flick and not like anything you've ever seen. Take a look and think like a child. It's a great view and very fun.",Positive "The late Dudley Moore had the most famous role of his too-short career in 1981's ARTHUR, a raucously funny and alternately touching tale that generates warm smiles, big belly-laughs, and an occasional tear if you're in the right mood. Moore received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance as Arthur Bach, a drunken playboy who ""races cars, plays tennis, fondles women, but he has weekends off and he's his own boss."" Arthur is destined to inherit 750 million dollars when he marries a snooty society girl named Susan Johnston (Jill Eikenberry)who is the spoiled daughter of an undercover gangster. Things get sticky when Arthur meets Linda Morolla (Liza Minnelli) a waitress/struggling actress from Queens who steals neckties for her father's birthday. Moore lights up the screen in one of the single funniest performances of the last 50 years. The late Sir John Gielgud won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his flawless turn as Arthur's acid-tongued butler and best friend, Hobson, whose outward disdain for Arthur's behavior covers more paternal feelings. There are other funny contributions by Barney Martin as Linda's father. Stephen Elliott as Susan's father, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as Arthur's demented grandmother. The film was directed with a keen eye for comedy by a first time director named Steve Gordon, who, sadly, died the following the year. There was also a forgettable sequel several years later, but this instant classic is not to be missed.",Positive "I had first watched this several years ago on a now-defunct Sicilian TV channel; amazingly, the film emerged as a heftily-priced DVD from Criterion: not being sure what I had made of it initially (despite having attained cult status over the years, the achievement proper is clearly viewed with modesty even by genre buffs), I opted not to make the purchase – as I did with the similar and, to me, unfamiliar FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958). Recently, however, I managed to acquire THE BLOB via a copy of the Spanish DVD which, interestingly, ported over the two Audio Commentary tracks from the Criterion ""Special Edition""…but, regrettably, I could not switch off the Spanish subtitles during playback of the main feature! Anyway, looking at the film anew, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it (despite many a narrative flaw, which I will get to later) – as a pure example of 'B-movie' schlockiness (atypically shot in pleasant color) and a time-capsule illustrating late 1950s social attitudes. The male lead was an early role for Steve(n) McQueen and, though the actor may have subsequently looked at it with disdain, his sole contribution to the genre proves fairly engaging: not averse to juvenile kicks but still essentially a decent (and, more importantly, altruistic) kid. The special effects depicting the slimy and expanding creature are not too bad of its kind and period; the film itself rises to a good climax – beginning with the monster's invasion of a cinema (showing DAUGHTER OF HORROR [1953/7] as I mentioned recently in that film's review but being curiously screened 'flipped' and which sequence, incidentally, would be featured at the opening of a satirical Italian program actually called ""Blob""!). As to the admittedly minor quibbles I have with the film: the monster is not shown traveling – it just turns up at a variety of places, never being seen by anyone!; there is a baffling over-emphasis (tantamount to padding) on the kids' scrapes with Police; it is silly to have the town doctor shoot at The Blob – as if fluid, whatever its proportion, can be destroyed by bullets!; equally nonsensical is having the teenagers alert the townsfolk of the danger by making door-to-door visits (especially when considering that, at that stage, only McQueen had actually seen the monster in action)! An inferior sequel emerged in 1972 called BEWARE THE BLOB!; the original was then remade in 1988 – I watched this not too long ago but it seems not to have made a lasting impression on me (though I know Micheal Elliott loves it). For the record, I will be following this viewing with two more collaborations between director Yeaworth and producer Jack H. Harris, namely 4D MAN (1959) and DINOSAURUS! (1960).",Positive "One of Scorsese's worst. An average thriller; the only thing to recommend it is De Niro playing the psycho. The finale is typically of this genre i.e. over-the-top, with yet another almost invincible, immune-to-pain villain. I didn't like the 60s original, and this version wasn't much of an improvement on it. I have no idea why Scorsese wasted his time on a remake. Then again, considering how bad his recent movies have been (I'm referring to his dull Buddhist movie and all the ones with his new favourite actress, the blond girl Di Caprio) this isn't even that bad by comparison. And considering Spielberg wanted to do the remake... could have been far worse.",Negative "As a former submariner, this was one of the worst submarine movies I have ever seen. First of all, a mutiny aboard any US Naval vessel, particularly a Nuclear Powered Trident submarine in unthinkable. These men are the best of the best and are dedicated to their mission. The responsibility they carry is awesome and they take it very seriously all the way from the Captain to the most junior crew member. I could never see a crew of any ship split their alliance between the Captain and the Executive Officer. An Executive Officer who acted as the Character played by Denzel Washington did would be relieved of his duties and Court Martialed, then drummed from the Navy. It is no surprise the Navy refused to send a technical adviser to help in making this film. Lastly, if any member of a submarine crew made the amount of noise made underway on this vessel they would be severely reprimanded. Submariners learn early in their career to be as quiet as possible to avoid detection. They don't slam doors and even speak quietly and wear soft soled shoes when underway. I was amazed at how loud they portrayed the crew while underway. Loud music would never be tolerated. I know portraying submarine life in reality would not sell movie tickets, but this is over the top to the point of being ridiculous. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.",Negative "I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: ""David"" (Bruce Willis) and ""Maddie"" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog.

Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon.

Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide ""Agnes,"" was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.",Negative "Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.

In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.

The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp",Positive "This film was quite a surprise. I wasn't expecting much, to be honest. Greta Garbo's first Hollywood film? So what? Probably something rough and with the usual exaggerated arm-waving and facial contortions that low-grade silent films so often show.

Well, was I mistaken. Greta Garbo must have just shocked the studio people as much as she did me, because this film made her a star, and deservedly so. She instinctively understood the power of just standing still, or of simply holding a meaningful expression for a long, lingering moment so its effect could be felt and not just seen. I kept thinking to myself, how did this modern actress get into a creaky silent film? She was just years and years ahead of her time.

The story isn't all that interesting, it is the usual tale of love found and lost. It is only the performance of Garbo as Leonora, the poor village girl who makes good in the big city and then returns to get the man who got away, that gives it life. Co-star Ricardo Cortez is serviceable, but his character is never really developed and he is demeaned by the script throughout. At one point he is made to wear Garbo's clothes, leave in a huff, then ignominiously return and give them back. And let's not even talk about his horrible final scenes with Garbo and then his wife. Way too ordinary, he didn't have much of a career after this and I can understand why. But he suffices as the somewhat mystifying object of Leonora's obsession.

There is one utterly fantastic line in this film that just says it all. ""Leonora, you are becoming conspicuous."" Yes, conspicuous indeed.

If you really want to know what it's all about without seeing the whole film, just watch the last 30 seconds or so - Garbo's glance as she sits quite alone in her luxurious car says everything. ""She must be so happy, she has everything she wants"" - yes, Garbo's face says it all about that. I have to see this one again, Garbo is just amazing.",Positive "The team of Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack produced a documentary of 50,000 Bakhtiari people and their animals on the Summer migration to winter grazing. The basic worth of this film today is as a time capsule of a ""forgotten people"" and how they lived during what we in the West knew as the ""roaring twenties."" A more drastic contrast could not be imagined. Raging river and barefoot mountain crossings are brutally realistic and the animals that disappear under the water do in fact die. To make sure that the audience of the time believed that the story took place, a signed certificate of authenticity is offered up at the end. The version that I saw had fascinating Iranian music that can stand alone and be appreciated without the film. Having said all this, the film is probably of more value to the anthropologist than the casual viewer in search of a good evening's entertainment. The crew had just barely sufficient stock to take the shots that they recorded and there is no fancy camera work resulting from multiple re-takes. The Western inter-titles detract from the experience but are in fact a part of the record since they demonstrate how Hollywood tried to put their spin on the lives of an indigenous peoples lives so that they would be appreciated by the audience of the day. Off-duty entertainment by desert police becomes a ""policeman's ball."" The producers went on to make the docu-drama Chang (1927) and the totally commercial King Kong (1933). The migration theme is used again in People of the Wind (1976) and in Himalaya (1999). Recommended for those who know in advance what they are getting into -- and then highly recommended for them.",Positive "I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:

Stanley and Stella in ""Breaking the Ice"". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately.",Positive "This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.

In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.

It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.

In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.

If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy.",Positive "Only saw this show a few times, but will live in my memory.

It is very frustrating that it is so difficult to find this anywhere to purchase and yet there seem to be endless repeats of stuff like Friends! Especially even more difficult to obtain being in England I guess..?

They say it was low ratings or was it a complaint from the Bakersfield PD themselves? Maybe it was just too clever for certain people?

Anyhow, just about the one comedy I would love to see again but is almost impossible to find. I hear it is being or has been repeated on another network? But alas not over here!!

Summary: Ingenious.",Positive "I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.

It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.

I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......",Negative "An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other ""inherent and pure"" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.",Negative "As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.",Negative "The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought ""Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of ""Lawrence Welk"" would bring more laughs than ""Mama's Boy"". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll ""Just Say No!' A one anna two....",Negative "What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go...",Positive "Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards ""eliminating"" her. After talking to a ""hitman"", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.

",Negative "The three main characters are very well portrayed, especially Anisio by rock musician turned into first time actor Paulo Miklos. He is extremely convincing as the lower class trespasser/invader. The film shows very well the snowball effect of getting involved in ever more shady business, the contrast and similarities between the lower and higher classes. How everyone gets carried away by greed and ambition. 9-9,5 out of 10.",Positive "This movie surprised me, it had good one-liners and laughs, + a nonstop action-packed storyline with tons of gun action and explosions. This movie surprisingly had a lot of good twists and turns. The plot is solid despite what others may think, it kept my interest the whole time right up till the very end. In conclusion; this is a great way for an action movie buff to spend time on.",Positive "I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?",Negative "This film is to the F.B.I.'s history as Knott's Berry Farm is to the old west. Shamelessly sanitized version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fight against crime. Hoover's heavy hand (did he have any other kind?) shows throughout with teevee quality script-reading actors, cheesy sets, cheap sound effects and lighting 101. With Jimmy Stewart at 20% of dramatic capacity, Vera Miles chewing the scenery, the film features every c-lister known in the mid-fifties with nary a hint of irony or humor, from the 'Amazon jungle' to the 'back yard barbecue', everything reeks of sound stages and back lots. Even the gunshots are canned and familiar. I imagine Mervyn Leroy got drunk every night. Except for a few (very few) interesting exterior establishing shots, nothing here of note beyond a curio.",Negative "I've seen this film because I had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). I couldn't stop thinking ""who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to Cannes Festival!"" It wasn't only boring, the actors were awful as well. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.",Negative "If you think ""Weird Al"" Yankovic is hilarious, you won't be disappointed by THE COMPLEAT AL. Not only does this rare mockumentary feature many of Yankovic's more memorable videos (""Like A Surgeon"" and ""I Love Rocky Road"" among them), but they are inter-spliced with funny vignettes supposedly highlighting the parodist's rise to fame. Yankovic is not for all tastes, but his humor is harmless and imaginative enough that even non-fans will at least be lightly amused. Die-hard fans will love it not only for its content, but also for its relatively early look into Yankovic's now nearly three decade career. Suitable for all ages, kiddies will no doubt love the funny visuals.",Positive "I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.

The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.

The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.

I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as ""a curse."" The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.

A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. (""Humbug!"" or ""The law is a ass."") Not here. ""Bleak"" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian ""ideal types"" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.

My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.

Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious ""curse,"" so the plot is easier to follow.",Positive "i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a ""cult classic""...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!",Negative "I had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, through reading about the film I had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in Philippe de Broca's films. On this account, however, I was sadly disappointed. I found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one-dimensional. Also, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.",Negative "Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick.

I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get ""Double Impact"". Even least of the expectations were not met.

I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !",Negative "I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.",Negative "This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called ""instructional"" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called ""Pvt. Snafu.""

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with ""five."" You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

""We lost the war,"" declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the ""War On Terror"" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous ""Dr. Suess,"" uses analogies of ""hot air balloon juice"" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time",Positive "There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to ""be a family again,"" then we don't WANT them to ""be a family."" What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?

THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as ""interesting."" This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as ""cool cause it's so far OUT, man!""). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT ""just in the film."" They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's ""the emperor's new clothes,"" the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .

There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no ""hidden meaning"" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like ""Visitor Q."" Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS ""Visitor Q"" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are ""just in the film."" They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this.

There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's ""cool."" They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually.

Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's ""Cool"" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!",Negative "Ahh, Talespin! What can I say that hasn't already been said about this great show? Nothing! This is without a doubt one of the most well-written shows I've ever encountered, live-action or animation. The newer stuff is way too dumbed down for my tastes, and some of the ""mature"" stuff I have to shoo kids out of the room for. But not Talespin.

The stories are engaging and very plausible. Some of them could even be stretched out to an hour or two for a movie. Episodes like Stormy Weather and Her Chance to Dream are very dramatic while still being enjoyable for kids and adults alike. Then there are the pure comedy episodes such as the Bluest of the Baloo Bloods and Stuck on you, where the emphasis is on hilarity. I can laugh myself to tears in a few choice ones.

The drama aspect is very lacking in most shows nowadays(at least, those which aren't specifically geared toward it), especially in cartoons. In the episode Stormy Weather for instance, Kit Cloudkicker decides that he's going to join an air circus, but Baloo believes that it would be too dangerous. In the biggest fight of the episode, Baloo yells at Kit to stay away from Daring Dan, to which Kit screams ""NO! You can't tell me what to do! YOUR'RE *NOT* *MY* *DAD*!"" and buries his face in his pillow. The next day he leaves for the air circus. This kind of drama is a rarity in a cartoon, and would be most welcome in the ones created nowadays.

The Characters have a lot of depth to them. Baloo is pretty much the way he is in The Jungle Book, plus or minus a few degrees of laziness. Rebecca is a cunning business woman whose ideas on getting money, while good in theory, are seldom good in practice. Molly is a cute little girl, but you can't let that deceive you. She can be a real hellion sometimes. Kit Cloudkicker is a darker character than the rest. He doesn't trust adults much unless they appeal to him, and he has a tendency to break off relationships. Watch his expression in Plunder and Lightning when he grabs the grappling hook: he looks as though he's prepared to put it right through a pirate.

In the end, it's the drama combined with the very real chemistry between the characters that makes this show #1 in my book. The relationship between Baloo and Kit is very real, almost father and son. This is demonstrated well in All's Whale That Ends Whale when Baloo takes Kit's word for it that Seymour is abusing the animals in his aquarium instead of siding with the other adults. Baloo and Becky's relationship is also realistic, due to Baloo's motivation for working comes from wanting to buy back the ol' Sea Duck, not necessarily a desire to help Rebecca. But something tells me that if he did get the Duck back he'd still do jobs for Rebecca.

The Sea Duck, not to mention all the other planes in the series, is pretty realistically designed. The plane's functions don't change once throughout the series(continuity like that is hard to come by also), and unlike most other ""super-planes"" of other cartoons, it doesn't have one single weapon on board(unless you count mangoes!), and relies instead on it's cunning pilot's great skill to get out of trouble. It's hard to think of a hero vehicle that doesn't have some sort of gun turret, laser cannon, or even a handgun somewhere on board. And the fact that they use their heads to get out of trouble is so hard to find in a cartoon nowadays. Plus it's just such a darn cool design!

This is definitely the best cartoon. Ever. Period. Definitely worth all ten stars!",Positive "This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, ""don't go away; this won't be boring"", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States.",Positive "In my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from ""Only the Brave"" to ""All About Lane"". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution.",Negative "In his directorial debut, Denzel Washington takes a true story that also happens to be a very difficult story and brings it to the screen with an honesty that we have come to expect from Washington's acting efforts, but now we see this touch as a director.

Recently we have seen some of the disastrous results of kids who have fallen through the cracks of public protection. This story tells of a nightmare existence that leaves terrible scars but suggests the triumph of the human spirit in the end.

We can nit pick on some first effort problems with too many close ups and not the best of editing these scenes but the simplicity of other scenes that project such power cannot be understated.

If the academy overlooks this film it will be travesty. This film pulls no punches and goes to the cold hard facts of the story with a purity that usually doesn't transcend from a novel to the screen. This , of course , is a tribute to the Director.

This is a dandy so go see it and tell your friends to go see it too!",Positive "This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life.

Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks ""What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.

But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.

We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.

",Positive "Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.

So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments.",Positive "An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.

I've seen both the silent version and sound version of ""Stella Dallas"". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of ""Beaches"" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.",Negative "As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be ""fruity."" This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.",Negative "One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out.",Positive "Not wishing to give *anything* away here, I would just say this technically excellent, flawlessly acted and uplifting little flic will reward the viewer with an excellent hour and a half's entertainment: It will amuse, surprise, possibly embarrass occasionally and almost certainly tug at the heartstrings from time to time, as it approaches the inevitable, but not obvious, ending without becoming clichéd or predictable in any way. Most definitely recommended.

A previous User's Comment gives 8 out of 10 for the film and 10 out of 10 for both Branagh and Bonham-Carter's outstanding performances - I agree entirely....",Positive "Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.

Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on point

The film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.

An excellent film all round.",Positive "Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.

The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.

In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.

Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.

John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain.

One of the best westerns ever.",Positive "Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain.""Dark Remains"" is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10.",Positive "I began watching a replay of this TV movie on a Sunday afternoon, thinking it was just another dumb airplane disaster flick. I was wrong.

""Pandora's Clock"" is an intelligent political thriller that is far beyond the quality of most TV movies. It could just as easily have made its debut on the big screen.

The cast is excellent, including veteran actors Richard Dean Anderson, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and Robert Loggia. Daphne Zuniga turns in one of her best performances as a medical specialist working for the CIA, and Frasier's Jane Leeves is also very good.

The dialogue is well-written and the story is compelling throughout. In fact, the final hour is so filled with plot twists and suspense that you can't leave your seat for a second. If you get a chance to see this movie, invest the time -- nearly four hours. You will be richly rewarded!",Positive "Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.

How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.

Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.

Matthew Barney has written that this is about ""the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity."" That's almost like saying, ""if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist."" Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.

So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.

The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.

On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the ""important"" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.

Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.

Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.

Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.

So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.

D+",Negative "If any style of film could be called my ""guilty pleasure"", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. ""Stardust"" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.

The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.

From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.

Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.

--PolarisDiB",Positive "but it's worth watching for Boyer, Lorre and Paxinou. Greene's entertainments that were filmed during the war either required transplanting to American shores, as in This Gun for Hire, or the use of American actors in roles where they did not fit. Bacall fits that part here. I kept waiting for her to whistle and bring Bogie to life; her tone of voice is simply all wrong for an upper class Englishwoman. But listen to the dialogue! No, people don't talk that way except in books, but Greene was sending a message about an England that needed to wake up to the dangers of the world. One other positive note: Greene's range of characters were kept whole. While Mr. Mukerjee resembled more a Brahamin, at least his nationality was kept, and his final conversation with Paxinou is priceless.",Positive "There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.

As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.

First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?

Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.

Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.

It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.

Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.

Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.

Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.

For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!",Negative The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.,Negative "This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.

The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes.

The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization.

The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to ""get lost"".

Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it.",Positive "This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R",Positive "Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see.",Positive """Opening Night"" released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The ""improvising"" in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times.",Positive "THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being ""crippled"" or ""weak"", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less.

In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it ""Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome"". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result…they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to ""bye, now""). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an ""Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word"". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?",Negative "This is widely viewed in Australia as one of the best cop dramas ever produced here ... and for my money, anywhere. It's raw, gritty, the characters are real, the situations are believable and it doesn't shy away from the darker side of life confronted every day by cops and the criminals, victims, lawyers and other people in their various orbits.

This show ran for 2 seasons and was discontinued because the show didn't sell well overseas. We are all sorry for its loss: however, like Fawlty Towers, we will be able to revere this as a limited-length series of uniformly high quality.",Positive "This movie was terrible. The first half hour is much like a... well, apologies for the lack of articulation, but it was simply a bad version of A Clockwork Orange. The first scene is almost photocopied from one of the first in Clockwork! Supposedly it was a tribute, as per the appearance of the Clockwork poster on the protagonist's wall, however ""ripoff"" is the more appropriate word. The movie felt as though it was torn right from the Kubrick classic, only filmed through a new director's eyes. A blind director. Unfortunately when it stops its massacre of Kubrick's work, the film gets even worse. As another commentator said, the deepness of this film is just shoved down your throat. Arrogant, self absorbed and ultimately meaningless drivel.

Perhaps the protagonists ramblings would touch a nerve if there was any actual character development in this movie. I felt absolutely nothing for this guy. And I'm an alcoholic, so I figure that if anyone might be able to feel anything for him, it would be me. Awful character development, dialogue and plot.

The worst part about this movie is the title. For a film called ""16 Years of Alcohol"", the alcoholism is hardly a factor in the flick. See first paragraph - it was such a butchering of A Clockwork Orange I can't get over it. A more suited title would have been ""16 Years of Violence,"" or, even better, ""A Clockwork Banana"".

Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie. If you disregard my advice and take it out anyway, drink. Trust me.",Negative "This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses",Negative "I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.

The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.

But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.",Negative "As someone who has lived with cerebral palsey for over forty years, I find this movie to be inspirational. If someone with such a severe case of CP as Christie Brown has can do so much, then there's no reason that I couldn't achieve my own dreams. Daniel Day-Lewis and Brenda Fricker both give awesome performances.

",Positive """Pecker"" proves that Waters has no intention of changing his tacky ways in his old age. A lot of things have changed since Waters started making films in the 1960s, but 40 years later he is still doing what he wants to do. Over the years, the budget of Waters' films has increased considerably. This is one of his most recent productions, but I was amazed to see that Waters still has that ""trailer-park"" touch. Edward Furlong plays Pecker, a kid who is obsessed with photography. He lives a quite life in Baltimore, MD, with his friends and family. But Pecker attracts the attention of a New York art agent (the always watchable Lili Taylor), and his life changes for the worst. Once again, Waters makes fun of art, fame and heterosexuality. It is not among his best films, but there are some big belly laughs here (""Memama"" has the best lines in the film!). It is consistently clever and funny, and has that very ""queer"" sensibility that I have come to love in Warters' movies.",Positive "Typical De Palma movie made with lot's of style and some scene's that will bring you to the edge of your seat.

Most certainly the thing that makes this movie better as the average thriller, is the style. It has some brilliantly edited scene's and some scene's that are truly nerve wrecking that will bring you to the edge of your seat. The best scene's from the movie; The museum scene and the elevator murder. There are some mild erotic scene's and the movies pace might not be fast enough for the casual viewer to fully appreciate this movie. So this movie might not be suitable for everybody.

The story itself is also quite good but it really is the style that makes the movie work! It might be for the fans only but also casual viewers should appreciate the well build up tension in the movie.

There are some nice character portrayed by a good cast. Michael Caine is an interesting casting choice and Angie Dickinson acts just as well as she is good looking (not bad for a 49-year old!).

The musical score by Pino Donaggio is also typically De Palma like and suits the movie very well, just like his score for the other De Palma movie, ""Body Double"".

Brilliant nerve wrecking thriller. I love De Palma!

10/10",Positive "Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.

The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.

Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.

The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.

Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.

It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.

So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.",Negative "Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and ""This is the whisper [rumor] most often told"" about one of Hollywood's most sensational ""mysteries.""

Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s ""Mysteries & Scandals"" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?

We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.

The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great ""Citizen Kane"" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In ""The Cat's Meow"" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.

And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.

What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.

The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, ""I'm not here!"" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.

This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good ""At Long Last Love."" It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards ""the beast"" named Hollywood. This is ""National Enquirer"" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well.",Negative "I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)",Negative "I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.

The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.

I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.

And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, ""I have to get my mom's shawl!!!"" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.

My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, ""HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel"" and ""It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!"" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.

I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.

Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie.",Negative "De Sica is becoming one of my favorite directors, but this one was a hit-and-miss for me. A grinning idiot youth becomes the leader of a community of illegal settlers in a deserted area outside Milano. It is a detailed and sparkling story of the innocent poor masses, complete with evil capitalists and trigger-happy police forces, but slowly it evolves into a magic fantasy tale, as the boy wonder Toto develops unlimited superhero powers. I had it up to here with the ever-smiling Toto after 10 minutes, and when the magic took over, I was left in the dust. There were so many wonderfully orchestrated shots, so many good characters among the settlers, that I kept thinking it was a waste the movie wasn't more serious with its material. The coupling of neorealism and fantasy comes out more as an experiment of the ""look-what-we-can-also-do-mum"" sort than as a fully developed piece of work/art.",Positive "The boys are working outside a recording studio when they hear ""the voice of an angel."" That would be Miss Van Doren, auditioning and going under the name of Miss Andrews because her father doesn't approve of her being a ""radio singer"". However, she hopes a certain big-wig, Mrs. Bixby, a friend of her dad's will hire her, and then he will have to give his approval.

She leaves but within minutes the boys are running amok in the studio causing havoc and having other musicians out to kill them after they ruin the recording session. Finally things calm down. ""Whew, we eluded them,"" says Moe. ""Yeah, we got away, too,"" answers Curly.

The boys then fool around in the studio, put on Miss Van Doren's record and Curly gets dressed in women's clothes and pretends he's singing. Mrs. Bixby walks in, is impressed and hires ""Seniorita Cucacha"" on the spot! For an extra $500, she's asked to come and sing at their high-society party that night. The rest, as they say,is history as Curly pretends to be an opera singer with some funny results. Oh, by the way, he accompanied by ""Senior Mucho"" and ""Senior Gusto.""

What happens at the party is simply that the truth wins out, but not before a few slapstick antics take place. In all, a pretty good episode. I enjoyed it but wouldn't rate it as anything special.",Positive "You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking ""When the F*** is this film ever going to END???"" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).

Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So ""Arty"" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.

I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk.

As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.",Negative "This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.

My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.

She was saying something like ""Don't let her get me"" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.

So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this!",Positive "This movie is simply incredible! I had expected something quite different form the film that I actually saw. However, it is very insightful in that it shows the aggressive nature of human sexuality and its linkage with animal behavior. Let me warn those among the readers of this article who are easily offended by content that is all too sexual, for the explicit sexual nature of this film feels like a high-brow sort of pornography. It even features a scene that comes extremely close to rape.

Meanwhile, I strongly suggest seeing this rare work of ""sexual art"". Every minute of the picture breathes the sexual spirit of the seventies, by the way. One should not forget how times have changed!

Go see it! It´s worth your money and time!",Positive "I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files!",Negative "That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.

I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being ""The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy"" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.

A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.

Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner ""Cousin Larry"" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?

Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.

Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? ""I was gonna give you a standing cremation""; ""I would like to marinate my friend."" Stop it!

Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.

Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.

I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.",Negative "They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.",Negative "Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to.

The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear ""Action!"". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands.

Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies.

With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.",Negative "I just read the plot summary and it is the worst one I have ever read. It does not do justice to this incredible movie. For an example of a good summary, read the listing at ""Turner Classic Movies"". Anyway, this was one of my favorite movies as a young child. My sister and I couldn't wait until every April when we could see it on T.V. It is one of the best horse movies of it's time. It is one of those great classics that the whole family can watch. The romance is clean and endearing. The story line is interesting and the songs are great. They don't make movies like this anymore. Good acting and not over the top. Pat Boone and Shirley Jones are at their best, along with many other great character actors.",Positive "watch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.

That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.

I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had ""jarhead"" syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.

And get over the slow mo ""cartridges coming out of the gun"" shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.

I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.

I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.",Negative "A film destined to be on late-night TV long after the present instant ""money-makers"" have long been forgotten. Perhaps a little too subtle for today's youngsters, but in time they'll grow into an appreciation of this movie.",Positive "According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain olé' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about ""Hood of the Living Dead"" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out.",Positive "From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.

Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.

One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words ""chest waxing"" and ""condoms"" are mentioned in conversation.

Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.

I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.

I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't ""gay jokes,"" they're just jokes. And they're funny.",Positive "CAMILLE 2000

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst visiting Rome, an amorous nobleman (Nino Castelnuovo) falls in love with a beautiful young libertine (Daniele Gaubert), but their unlikely romance is opposed by Castelnuovo's wealthy father (Massimo Serato), and Fate deals a tragic blow...

A sexed-up love story for the swinging Sixties, adapted from a literary source (Alexandre Dumas' 'La Dame aux Camelias') by screenwriter Michael DeForrest, and directed with freewheeling flair by Radley Metzger who, along with the likes of Russ Meyer and Joe Sarno, is credited with redefining the parameters of 'Adult' cinema throughout the 1960's and 70's. Using the scope format for the last time in his career, Metzger's exploration of 'la dolce vita' is rich in visual excess (note the emphasis on reflective surfaces, for example), though the film's sexual candor seems alarmingly coy by modern standards. Production values are handsome throughout, and the performances are engaging and humane (Castelnuovo and Gaubert are particularly memorable), despite weak post-sync dubbing. Though set in an unspecified future, Enrico Sabbatini's wacked-out set designs locate the movie firmly within its period, and Piero Piccioni's 'wah-wah' music score has become something of a cult item amongst exploitation devotees. Ultimately, CAMILLE 2000 is an acquired taste, but fans of this director's elegant softcore erotica won't be disappointed. Next up for Metzger was THE LICKERISH QUARTET (1970), which many consider his best film.",Negative "I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.

The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!

Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.",Negative "Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that ""poor"" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.

I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.",Negative "OK I'm not an American, but in my humble Scottish opinion Steve Martin is not, never has been, and never will be a funny man as long as our posteriors point in a southerly direction. Phil Silvers as Sergeant Bilko was a funny man, no doubt due to the skilled writers and directors and all the other talented team working characters in the series who contributed perfectly to one of the funniest and dateless situation comedies America has ever produced. How anyone could have the audacity to even attempt to replicate the Phil Silvers character is beyond me. To compound things the exercise was repeated in Martin's unfunny attempt to be Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau, another abortive attempt, in my opinion, to rekindle a demonstrably unfunny career. Some of your contributers say 'Steve Martin puts his own stamp on the character', to that I would say 'balderdash' , his portrayals will be long forgotten when those of Silvers and Sellars will be treasured for generations to come",Negative "After CITIZEN KANE in 1941, Hollywood executives turned their cob-webbed backs on the great Orson Welles. With the exception of KANE, Welles lost all creative control on MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and many other films to come. Welles was an innovative and creative genius, the most unconventional of filmmakers when Hollywood was in need of a few more. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is yet another example of the misunderstood view of Welles' films at the time, a movie that seems a bit choppy and non-fluent. It has a conventional 1940's premise told in a most unconventional way, and I am sure some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It is now legend that Columbia mogul Harry Cohn stood up during its initial screening and asked what it was about. In hindsight, many old grumps that ran the studios back then had not one clue as to the cinematic techniques and master story-telling of Orson Welles and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is only nearly great because of their intrusion.

Beside being arguably the greatest director of all-time, Welles was also quite a performer as an actor. At 25, we all know what he did as ""Charles Foster Kane"", perhaps the most famous character in film history. Here, he inhabits a rare character of dim wit and not much intelligence, something unfamiliar to those familiar with Welles other great work. Instead of a slick, wise tongue, he speaks with a rough, Irish twang. Rita Hayworth (his unhappily married wife at the time) plays an unhappily married wife of a lawyer who puts Welles in a spell and is able to draw him into a job that will take him to the limits of deception and disillusionment. He is a large lug who may have even murdered a man, but the real mystery lies in the relationship between Hayworth (with stunning blonde hair) and crippled hubby Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein from CITIZEN KANE). A creepy partner of Sloane's is along for the sail around the country to set off a number of peculiar events that has Welles' ""Michael O'Hara"" head spinning. Welles narrates the picture as O'Hara, but things are still unclear throughout. See for yourself and realize that it takes at least 2 viewings to fully know exactly what's up.

An uncharacteristically strange courtroom sequence centers around ""O'Hara"", with Sloane defending him. It is an oddly comedic scene with some quirky courtroom methods, including Sloane cross-examining himself. I didn't really laugh here because the film stalls at this point after a first portion that never gets to take off anyway. Up to this point, the cinematography is great, some scenes are shot with craft and skill (aquarium love scene), but there is no distinct line drawing the elements and us, the audience, in. Reportedly, the court scene was re-shot against Welles' requests (10 closeups of Hayworth were ordered) and a makeshift song sung by the starlet was thrown in at Cohn's insistence. A gaudy score infuriated Welles, who once again, was left out of the editing process. Thank Welles himself for saving the film entirely with a tour-de-force ending that will always be treasured. The so-called ""Hall of Mirrors"" scene brings buffs back time and time again, rightfully so.

It must be seen to be believed and it does a good job of wrapping up some confusing ideas presented. The crash of the mirrors represents ""O'Hara's"" disillusionment and the ""crazy house"" itself is a masterpiece of art and set decoration. It seems more like a state of mind than an actual place and is indeed ""crazy"", twisted and turned like a Dali painting. This is a great ending to a flawed picture that if left alone would probably have made the AFI's Top 100. Then again, 3 or 4 more of Orson Welles films may have made all collective ""best of"" lists if he had been left alone to create his own magic.

NOTE: Look for the Mercury Players that are so prominent in Welles pictures. They pop up all over. RATING: 8 of 10",Positive "This has to be one of the top overrated anime shows ever made. And yes, I was even shown the ""End of Evangelion"" and that still made me hate it even more. Not to mention the countless rip-offs of this show!

I don't mind psychological and philosophy untertones, but Evangelion drags it out into the mud like nothing else! Not many of the characters seemed to be very interesting. The only ones that seemed to be interesting were Asuka, Misato and Pen-Pen. Other than that, mostly everyone else were a bunch of whiny crybaby losers. They need to go to a psyciatric center, not piloting giant robots against aliens called ""Angels"".

Even the mecha and alien fights did not help at all. Goes something like this:

""Well, there are these robots, and they are really cool because they bleed(!) when they get hurt, but they are not really mecha, but captured angels, so sometimes they go insane and don't do what the underaged pilots want, and they have to be controlled better...blah blah blah!""

I am so sorry, but I just cannot recommend Evangelion to anyone, anime otakus or not. To those who love this series greatly, fine you're entitled to that opinion, I respect you. But to thoses that have a ""out of your mind"" obsession to think that every one will like this series, you are more of an egotist.

I prefer ""Macross"", ""Mospeada"", ""Run-Dim"" and ""Robot Taekwon V"" myself.",Negative "I chose ""Dead Creatures"" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like ""28 days"" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive.

That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...

Very VERY BAD MOVIE.

*My rate: 2/10

------------------

------------------",Negative "This movie was well done in all respects. The acting is superb along with the fine audio soundtrack which I purchased because it was so moving. It is my all time favorite movie ahead of eastwoods ""white hunter,black heart"". This movie is simply the best.

cheers Zuf",Positive "In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to ""protect"" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). ""Offside"" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).

""Offside"" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films (""The Shop on Main Street,"" ""Loves of a Blonde,"" ""Closely Watched Trains"" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the ""Prague Miracle"" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, ""Offside"" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.

Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a ""point."" They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.

It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in ""real time."" Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.

It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. ""Offside"" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, ""Offside"" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007.",Positive "There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.",Negative "While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for ""sensitivity"" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this ""grappling"" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television.",Positive "One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. I wanted to vomit after watching it. I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's. What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding. Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. The story itself was OK. The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's. But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.",Negative "I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed.

This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.

Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud.

It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small.",Positive "I have a nice collection on movies going, and this one was added to it. Number 274 to be exact.

The title had me going at first. Splatter University. I thought this would be a great horror movie. Was I ever wrong. Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it could have been a lot better. I love all movies, but this one was one that was more of a laugh then a scare.

Poor audio quality, poor acting, and poor shot arrangements are some of the areas that could have been improved. 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie is ideal for a good laugh. If your looking for one of those movies to make fun of, then this is one!",Negative "Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.

Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.

The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).

Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.

Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.

The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical.",Positive "I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the best series ever! It was a great shame when it was canceled, and I hope someone will have the good sense to pick it up and begin the series again. The good news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I rushed down to the store and picked up a copy and am happy to say that it is just as good as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a wonderfully dark and creepy character, and all actors were very good. It is a shame that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will not be disappointed. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very interested, and will soon be a fan. She finds it ""very twisted"" and has enjoyed the episodes she has seen. I cannot wait to view the episodes which were not aired.

This show rocks!!!!",Positive "This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.",Negative "Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al!",Positive "Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for ""King Kong versus Godzilla"". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.

The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of ""Chushingura"" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a ""nation which shall not be named"" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.

Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.

By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted ""Kong"" or ""King Kong"" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy.",Negative "Nothing revolutionary here; just impeccably elegant, restrained cinema.

GARDE A VUE is confined almost exclusively to a drab police station, and mostly to one interrogation room, but director Claude Miller (who made the wonderful film THIS SWEET SICKNESS, among others) intercalates spare glimpses of exterior tableaux as minimalist locale scenography. Miller's restraint, especially early on, is breathtaking, and his exquisite handling of the consequently-pivotal interior mise-en-scene makes for captivating viewing.

Lino Ventura is superb as usual, succeeding to legitimize a character that, on paper, is cliche: the laconic, hard-nosed, world-weary homicide detective. Ventura lives the role, making it completely believable, even though the script allows us little access to his inner workings; the film ends at the very moment it appears he will be forced to confront his failure for the first time.

Michel Serrault is equal to the task as the suspected child-killer who shrewdly spars with the single-minded flic. The exchanges between the two are more-often-than-not pregnant with tension and the aura of a constantly metamorphosing playing field for a battle of wits. Serrault's character is by turns deplorably haughty and cunning, and pitiable; then later....

The ""message"" of GARDE A VUE, if one were to search for one, is a condemnation of police methodology and the kind of pressures that make a cop over-zealous to, if necessary, close cases at the expense of justice. For most of its length though the film shines as nothing more than an exemplar of how to turn a potentially soporific set-bound scenario into a suspenseful drama of the utmost cinematic economy.

",Positive "I had watched snippets from this as a kid but, while I purchased Blue Underground's set immediately due to its being a Limited Edition, only now did I fit it in my viewing schedule - and that's mainly because Bakshi's American POP (1981) just turned up on late-night Italian TV (see my review of that film below)!

Anyway, I found the film to be a quite good sword-and-sorcery animated epic with especially impressive-looking backdrops (the rather awkward rotoscoped characters were, admittedly, less so) with a rousing if derivative score. The plot, again, wasn't exactly original, but proved undeniably engaging on a juvenile level and the leading characters well enough developed - especially interesting is the villainous Ice-lord Nekron and the enigmatic warrior Darkwolf; the hero and heroine, however, are rather bland stereotypes - but one can hardly complain when Bakshi and Frazetta depict the girl as well-endowed (her bra could be torn off any second) and half-naked to boot (her tiny panties are forever disappearing up her ass)! Still, it's clearly an action-oriented piece and it certainly delivers on this front (that involving Darkwolf being particularly savage); the final showdown though brief, is also nicely handled and sees our heroes astride pterodactyls assaulting the villains' lair inside a cave .

In the long run, apart from the afore-mentioned Frazetta backdrops, the main appeal of this movie for me now is its nostalgia factor as it transported me back to my childhood days of watching not just films like CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) and THE BEASTMASTER (1982) but also animated TV series such as BLACKSTAR (1981-82) and HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (1983-85).

As for the accompanying THE MAKING OF ""FIRE AND ICE"" (TV) (Mark Bakshi, 1982) **1/2:

Vintage featurette on the sword-and-sorcery animated film which is only available via the washed-out VHS print owned by Ralph Bakshi himself! It goes into some detail about the rotoscope technique and also shows several instances of live-action 'performances' (in a studio) of segments from the script - which would then be traced, blended in with the backgrounds and filmed. Still, having watched several such behind-the-scenes featurettes on the art of animation (on the Disney Tins and the Looney Tunes sets, for instance), it's doesn't make for a very compelling piece...",Positive "I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.

This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad ""made for TV"" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):

- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.

- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.

This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.

The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.

Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.

- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.

- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.

I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input.",Negative "I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.

Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.

I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.

And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.

I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.

There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.",Negative "The ""math"" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the ""math"" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the ""mathematician"" uses some theory about ""bubbles"". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use ""bubble theory"" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said ""Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive."" At which point, one other character points out ""Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live."" Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to ""support"" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.",Negative "Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.",Negative "This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).

I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews.

Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?

I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...

Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...",Negative "I first rented this film many years ago, and was completely enthralled by it. Just recently, feeling a strange need to revisit some of the way-too-few films that I've immensely enjoyed in my lifetime, I decided to give ""Erendira"" another look. And I'm glad I did, as I soon discovered that even the passage of time has not in the least dulled the shine of this film.

The story is about a teenaged girl (Erendira, played remarkably by Claudia O'hana - in some respects she resembles Winona Ryder!) who accidentally burns down her grandmother's mansion after which the grandmother, played downright hypnotically by Irene Papas, forces the girl into a life of prostitution on the road to repay the damages.

The viewing is at once fascinating and compelling - though, inspite of the basic premise, which deals with prostitution, is tastefully void of gratuitous steamy sexual content. The story revolves more around the interactions between the girl and her grandmother, and the various other colorful characters with whom they come into contact on their sojourn - which, by the way, is in the rough and tumble part of rural Mexico.

The film is very atmospheric, arrestingly enigmatic with a decided dreamlike quality. It sometimes borders on the bizarre, but not to the point of, say, a David Lynch film. It's also worth mentioning that the film is very allegorical in nature, read the comments from previous viewers below...

Often in the background you hear the sounds of a lone accordion, quiet and melancholy, adding just the right musical accents to highlight the Mexican setting. The cinematography of the rural places, many of which are in the desert, is quite superb.

The film moves at a nice pace, neither too fast nor too slow, and after every scene I felt I had to rewind the tape and play it over again, just because it makes you want to do that. For me anyway, it really is that compelling.

Hopefully you will see the film in its Spanish language version, with subtitles. I studied Spanish in high school as well as in college, and I was happy to be able to understand much of the dialogue. Por ejemplo: ""El mundo no es tan grande como pensaba."" (""The world's not as big as I thought"" - i.e., It's a small world.)

This film somehow reminds me of stumbling upon a dusty old bottle of vintage wine, which, upon drinking, is immensely satisfying, however, you are left with some sadness upon realizing that there aren't more bottles just like this one.",Positive "The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.",Positive "When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as ""brilliant"" or ""fun"" or ""better than the original Grease,"" you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.

If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.

For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows…

1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way (""Score Tonight,"" ""Reproduction,"" ""Do It For Our Country,"" and ""Prowlin'"") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.

2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds.

3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.

I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.",Negative "Straight to the point: ""The Groove Tube"" is one of the most unfunny, unclever and downright horrible films ever made. This ""comedy"" is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it's almost incomprehensible that it was even made. I said almost because there are fans of everything after all.

This film isn't even ""good"" bad or ""enjoyable"" bad. To put this movie on the same level of entertainment as ""Plan 9"" or ""Robot Monster"" would be a crime to those films. Films like that you can actually watch and get a kick out of. But this film is SO bad, SO poorly made, acted and scripted and SO incredible stale, that there just isn't even a trace of ""camp"" or ""schlock"" to be found.

Even though this was made before Saturday Night Live premiered, comparisons were probably inevitable. I'm not a big fan of SNL, but this film is worse than the worst SNL skit you can find. And man, that's BAD. Just to keep the men viewers from leaving, Shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often, but poorly-filmed breasts from 1974 aren't going to excite anyone these days. Truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep-inducing excursion, I doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either.

A man named Ken Shapiro made this film. I swear to God, any ten-year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. It's just downright unreal - this is truly an unbelievable film. The ""jokes"" and ""gags"" are so infantile that even little boys who like to sneak dad's porno mags out at night won't laugh.

I will give this film one thing - the very last sequence, the ""dancing man"" sequence, where a guy (Shapiro) on the streets of NYC dances to a tune, is easily the best thing in this horrible film. Not that the ""dancing man"" sequence is that great either - it definitely has its moments of not being clever as Shapiro desperately tries to fill in the time for the entire song - but it actually was somewhat watchable. The part of this sequence where the cop starts dancing with the man is the one sole trace of cleverness in the entire film. No wonder Shapiro put this sequence last - again, while not so great itself, it easily beats anything else in this ""film.""

Otherwise, this film is such a complete piece of crap, it's unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. The name of this film should have been ""Ken Shapiro's Craparama."" It's amazing that this was made, but many truly talented filmmakers can't get in. However, I will say that I bet the geniuses at NYU would love this movie. Total garbage.",Negative "My parents took me to this movie when I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it. I had never before seen anything as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. (She was twenty-two when she made Elephant Walk) Remember, I'm nine, so the feelings aren't sexual, I just couldn't see anything else on the screen. I just wanted to sit at her feet like a puppy and stare up at her. She has begun to show her age, (She's almost seventy-four) but I still believe her to be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking women to ever have lived.

I have seen the movie several times since, and it is a sappy melodrama. What saves it is, of course, Miss Taylor's beauty, magnificent scenery, the very impressive elephant stampede, and a well-made point on human arrogance in the face of nature.

All in all, a well-spent couple of hours watching the movie channel or a rented video.",Positive "I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.

Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.

Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.

2/10",Negative "Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing ""Wednesday"". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.",Negative "This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series""Heartbeat"" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character.",Positive "This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.",Negative "What a poor excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm ashamed to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background for God's sake! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is weak, the acting is weaker and the new Zealand/American accents just don't work. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was a waste of money better spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could make better movies with their cell phones. Goof: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. I'd love to go on but it just isn't worth the trouble in any way.",Negative "A film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, ""Farewell My Lovely"", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure.",Negative "Running out of films to rent, I picked up Freebird. I struggled through the first third of the movie wondering if the rest would be a waste to see. Fortunately, it really warmed up, and I loved the movie quite a bit. The second half of the movie had me grinning and laughing the entire time. Thankfully, although there were bits of CGI included, they were not overdone or prevalent.

I would have to say, though - the actors all have heavy European accents, so be warned if you have trouble understanding those voices or their cultural humor.

I really loved this movie, and will have to order myself a copy for my own collection.",Positive "Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book ""McCabe"" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****",Negative "I have seen The Perfect Son about three times. I fail to see how this film is a gay film, I am not even gay, but I don't see it as a gay film. It is a film with a gay character, I can't see why every film with a gay character should be strictly a film about being gay. I find the film to be sympathetic to the study of death, the death of someone who is your kin. I think Theo turns his life around fairly quickly after rehab because he wants to and watching his brother dying in front of him makes him reassess his life. I found the dialog in the scene when Theo tells Ryan he is going to be a father to be very moving, Ryan states that he doesn't want to know about the things he is never going to see or share with anyone. Isn't that horrific and sad? I highly recommend the film.",Positive "Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too.",Positive "I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.

The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.

On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.

The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The ""ear piercing "" part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.",Negative "I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.

Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.

A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(",Negative "Although written by Stephen King, an overrated writer if there ever was one, this is actually quite entertaining B-movie. Vampiric, incestuous creatures who live in the candle-lit house and drain the life-force of virgins, great graveyard scenery, heroic cats and very pretty virgin. The soundtrack even has Enya's music, an idea which I found quite... nice. I'm sure King is disappointed to this little movie, although it HAS crappy dialogue and ideas, all of them from a true and tedious King potboiler. (Albeit Sleepwalkers, if I'm understood right, is a script without any novel or short story behind it). Still, those touches of sewer-odors show he DIDN'T use a ghost-writer after all...",Positive "I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is ""so bad it's good"", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1",Negative "The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).

This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.

But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of ""Use the Force Luke"" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from ""Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go ""TinTin, I am your Uncle"" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.

The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH????

And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.",Negative "I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.",Negative "And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where ""Friends"" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the ""perfect guy"" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!",Positive "The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.

I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.

It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.

Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.

I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a ""Michael Caine phase"" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible.

As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its ""memorable quotes"" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).

It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.

Repeat viewings are a must.

And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.

I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: ""I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever.""",Positive "Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment.

There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style.

A disappointment.",Negative "I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band ""Wilco.""

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about ""the process,"" a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the ""friendship had run its course,"" and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label ""hurt their feelings"" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.",Negative "Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews.

This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about!

The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford.

The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.

The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between ""Days of Thunder"" and ""Apollo 13.""

And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of ""Thunderbird 6"" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.

There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.

The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells",Negative "Is it a good idea to use live animals for department store window displays?

No, and here's why....

In ""Hare Conditioned"" the sale that Bugs is helping promote is over and the store manager (Nelson) is transferring him to a new department: taxidermy. Naturally, Bugs objects and the fun begins.

using nearly every department in the store (children's wear, sports, shoes, costumes, women's nightgowns - don't ask.), Bugs comes out on top at every turn, even referring to the manager as ""The Great GilderSNEEZE"". Even when trapped in the confines of an elevator, Bugs makes the best of the situation.

Director Jones is on top of his pictorial game as always, as are Blanc (as Bugs, natch) and Nelson (the manager - who DOES sound like radio mainstay Gildersleeves - go ask your grand-parents).

And a sage word of advice: when confronted by a fuzzy-looking woman wanting to try on bathroom slippers, always check her ears.

Ten stars for ""Hare Conditioner"", the best argument yet for animal labor laws.",Positive "No wonder this was released straight to DVD here in Australia, no redeeming features what so ever. The dialog was hokey, the acting, awful and the script sucked!! Whoever thought it would be a good idea to do a sequel or follow up to the far superior John Badham film, Wargames from the 80s, well they must of been on something cause it was a bad idea!! Amanda Walsh was good in it as the eye candy/love interest, while Matt Lanter was good as the other main lead- that is about it. I would not recommend Wargames: The Dead Code to anyone, check out Hackers or the original Wargames film- both are better than this piece of crap!!",Negative "This Hong Kong filmed potboiler packs in more melodrama than week's worth of 'The Young & The Restless'. This one is more of a throwback to the original 'Emmanuelle' trilogy(especially 'Goodbye Emmanuelle') than a D'Amato sleazefest. Chai Lee(Emy Wong)undergoes a stunning transformation from dour nurse to hot-to-trot streetwalker. Future Italian porn star/politician, Illona Staller, who would later go by the name Ciccolina(and have sex with an HIV positive John Holmes) plays Emy's competition. Exotic locales and some decent soft-core scenes round this one out. Recommended for fans of the original 'Emmanuelle', of which I am one!",Positive "This little film had long been on my ""keeper"" list. Do people realize how stressed out, menopausal, emotionally abused women (as well as the mentally retarded) were REALLY treated by the medical profession at the turn of the century??!! All of the pious uptight Christian attitudes of that time were deadly to exploring TRUE emotional feelings that would allow us to embrace suffering souls, let alone explore what it means to embrace our humanity. Can you really imagine (by today's standards) that Walt Whitman's books were banned because he acknowledged women as having feelings and emotional responses as great as a mans? Think about that! The sensitivity of this movie still gets me and I give credit to the director for capturing this through his eyes.",Positive "This film deals with two ex-football players who are Fred Williamson, (Mack Derringer) and Gary Busey, (Lenny) who work as private eyes and meet all kinds of ladies and men with some bad backgrounds. Mack Derringer is approached by his ex-wife Vanity (Jennifer Derringer) who works at having sex talk over the telephone. Jennifer is being threatened by one caller who wants to do horrible things to her and she asks for his help along with several other ladies. Mack & Lenny have more time on their hands and often go to Miami, Fl. golf courses or hang out in a Sports Bar where all kinds of city things go on. There is lots of punches, killings and plenty of double meaning words that bring this film completely down to a big ZERO. Don't waste your time, this film cost me only 50 cents and that was too much.",Negative "A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.

The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisions—in particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.

Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.

I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage.",Negative "I am glad I saw this film having seen some of the director's other films in the past. I thought the production values was great like the costumes and settings with the bridge. It was interesting to see how the concept of spirit and demons were handled.

I do agree with some of the other comments about the fight scenes. They were hard to follow at times.

Ultimately, a moral tale. It would be interesting to know what some Japanese viewers thought of the film. It is a film I would like to see again.

Some scenes like the ones where Benkai and the Prince were fighting on a ""psychic"" level were well done.

I did come out of the cinema thinking what has just happened here. Intense.",Positive "How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that ""different"" sometimes equals ""dreck"". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!",Negative "And, finally, old, old Michael Corleone falls over and goes 'THUMP!' Who REALLY did the writing for this last installment of the Godfather saga? Probably the same staff who does ""As the World Turns."" This flick doesn't deserve the title ""Godfather"" at all. Let's call this one ""The Cosas of Our Nostras"" or ""All My Capos"". As someone who's encountered a number of Mafia people in my business life, I can say without exception, that I've never met any mobster as inwardly-conflicted and contemplative as Michael Corleone. Let's face it, these guys are in the Mafia solely because they're greedy, nothing more. In this film, Don Corleone spends lots of time pondering his past deeds and his bleak future, perhaps even the Afterlife, then recovers remarkably fast in order to pull off some fantastic business deal or order the death of this one or that one like the big time operator he is, deep down. Then, there's his failed marriage. After the break-up scenes in G2, we may hope that Michael & Kay will reunite as man and wife, but here they seem to just become very good, platonic friends who can laugh & cry & share intimate thoughts about their lives. It's as if the screenwriters try to make Michael into a woman. It's bizarre behavior for two people who shared the passion of the marriage bed for 9 years. There's some miscasting here and there, or perhaps they're sins of authorship. Poor, old-country-beautiful Sophia Coppola is saddled with a hopeless role, with too many short lines in the film that don't fit what a young woman would say in casual conversations - was given ""remarks"" rather than ""lines"" to emote. Her 'passionate' lovemaking scene with Andy Garcia looks like something from a bad teen sex comedy as they chew their open-mouthed kisses and fondle each others backsides on the kitchen drainboard like marionettes...scullery sex was brought off wonderfully by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, but it's just laughable here. Then, there's Andy's character, Vinnie Mancini, who's also given a difficult & thankless role to play. He's expected, I guess, to be the new, new Don Corleone, but he's almost handed the job on a silver platter and has to do little to strengthen his position, unlike Michael's simultaneous hits on all 5 Families in G1. This hand-me-down process may be an authentic way of transferring power in a Mafia Family, but why is so much made of this boring routine? Certainly, Don Vincent may earn the respect of his fellow gangsters someday, but there's little character revelations in the script to give us a portrait of this young man, sadly. Puzo did such a fine job of quickly & concisely developing Michael's character in G1. But, G3 has no economy in it's story-telling and we suffer through drawn out expositories until we just want to take a snooze. Thirdly, George Hamilton was also handed a thankless task, in taking over as family lawyer after Robt Duvall reportedly turned down a 3rd installment as Tom Hagen. George wisely underplayed his role, so it came off without damage to the actor. The development of Connie Corleone's character is interesting, but it goes too far when she takes murderous matters into her own hands (she could well end up sleeping with the Fredos, if this were the real world). But, it's not all bad. The assassination scene in the hotel penthouse is nifty! Also, ""they keep pulling me back in"" or words to that effect is a great line. And, we recover some old-country feel as we get to go back to Sicily, even if it's all done in 1989 and they've got modern cars & haircuts. The plot lines involving the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic Church are pretty interesting, since it's based on some actual financial shenanigans at Banco Vaticani in the 1980's, but it's brought too far, again, with the too-spectacular death scenes, etc. The Grand Opera scenes are very dramatic and well photographed. But, the death scene of Mary toward the end is an unbalanced attempt of emotional-manipulation, at best. All screenwriters need to learn that we don't always need more and more death in order to bring a mafia movie to a successful conclusion. You feel sorry for Kay that her daughter is dead, she plays her grief so well, but Michael's reaction is hammy, hammy, hammy. Then, Michael dies sometime in the 21st Century, in Sicily, alone on a grand estate, of heart-failure...no grandson to play with before his demise, no wife to grieve for him. What SHOULD have happened in the last 1/2 of this movie is Michael being tracked down by someone like Rudy Guilliani, put on trial, all his dirty family's sleazy little enterprises and bloodthirsty indulgences brought into the light of day, Michael then convicted under RICO statutes and sent to Federal Prison for life...then he can keel over dead from heart-failure while mopping a floor IN LEAVENWORTH. That's how mafia dons were ending their careers in the late 80's and early 90's and they got much better treatment than what they deserved.",Negative "Can any one help find out the title and artist of the song, that was played at least halfway through the movie. I can't remember what scene was playing. The words in the song are of a ballad. Some of the lyrics go like "" It's natures way of telling you somethings wrong."" It's natures way of telling it in a song."" ""It's natures way of forgiving you."" Please Help me with this question. Thanks so much! I have been searching the internet for days, I can't get this song out of my mind. So now this will challenge me to find some one out there who may be able to help mer with this matter. I wish I would of been paying attention to the scene, when it was playing.",Positive "this short film trailer is basically about Superman and Batman working together and forming an uneasy alliance.obviously,the two characters have vastly differing views on how to deal with crime and what constitutes punishment.it's a lot of fun to see these two iconic characters try to get along.i won't go int to the storyline here.but i will get into the acting,which is terrific.everyone is well cast.the two actors playing Superman and Batman are well suited to their characters.the same filmmakers that made Batman: Dead End and Grayson also made this short film.of the three,i probably liked this one the least,but i still thought it was well done.for me,World's finest is a 7/10",Positive "Think of this pilot as ""Hawaii Five-O Lite"". It's set in Hawaii, it's an action/adventure crime drama, lots of scenes feature boats and palm trees and polyester fabrics and garish shirts...it even stars the character actor ""Zulu"" in a supporting role. Oh, there are some minor differences - Roy Thinnes is supposed to be some front-line undercover agent, and the supporting cast is much smaller (and less interesting), but basically the atmosphere is still the same. Problem is, ""Hawaii Five-O"" (another QM product) already existed at the time and had run for years. It filled the market demand for Hawaii-based crime dramas quite adequately. Code Name: Diamond Head may have been intended as the hier to H50 as the older series eventually dwindled away...but it comes across as a superfluous, 2nd rate copy. It doesn't suck, but it's completely derivative and doesn't do anything as well as the original.

There is some decent acting talent involved here. Thinnes is an old pro, and he gives the role his best shot, and he isn't bad. But Thinnes is only as good as his material and his director. Ian McShane is in here as an evil spy master named ""Tree"", and McShane tends to be the most interesting actor in any scene he appears in. But he's phoning his part in here. Frances Ngyuen is reasonably exotic looking, but her astounding skinniness, opaque features, thick accent and wooden delivery aren't the stuff of which dreams are made. Relying on her to supply the 'romantic interest' for Thinnes was probably the series' biggest mistake. At least for for a series aimed at white audiences brought up with Marsha Brady and Peggy Lee as our love goddesses. Give her another 30 lbs and a year with a dialog/voice coach, and she might cut it. Zulu is, well, his usual self - enjoyable in bit parts, but he isn't a person who can carry a feature by himself.

In addition, the plot and dialog are strictly by-the-numbers, with nothing to distinguish them from any other Quinn Martin production. And by this point, the American TV audience had seen a whoooole lot of QM productions....I think ""CN: DH"" was one too many, and it sank without a trace. It wasn't the really the actors' fault, and I hope they walked away from this with a decent paycheck and one more entry on their C.V.s.

MST3000 revived this for their treatment in their sixth season, and they had a lot of good natured fun with it. Worth seeking out in that version if you enjoy the MST approach to movie japery and lampoon, but I can't imagine anyone caring about this pilot for any other reason.",Negative "This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an ""Igor""-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.

But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in ""Kleinschloss"" (""little castle""). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.

It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures.",Positive "A solid B movie.

I like Jake Weber. His understated delivery is refreshing in a time of over the top performances. I liked the relationship between the father and son. I liked the family dynamics. The Wendigo looks silly, but it is a representation of the kid's toy and the dead deer. It's an amalgamation like, see? This is a psychological story, not a Freddy slash em up instant gratification flick. Watch it and reflect on your inner child and what the movie might have to say to you and you'll be fine.

Nice work.",Positive "An actor asks, ""What's my motivation?,"" to understand his or her character. After viewing this this ""docudrama,"" this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.

This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.

Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a ""Simpsons"" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.

Why did this unrepentant woman begin ""grooming"" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.

Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on ""The Today Show""? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a ""Son of Sam"" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?

Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from ""too liberal"" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?

A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: ""At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins.""

Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway.",Negative "I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.",Negative "This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang.

The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical.

Disappointing: Sinatra

Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary.

Tolerable: Mr ""i remember the numbers on my dice""

Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)

Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.",Negative "I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the ""whip-around"" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this ""horror"" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)",Negative "i thought this movie was really really great because, in India cinemas nowadays, all you see is skin, music, and bad acting...in this movie, you can see some tradition, ethnicity, and at least some decency...although some parts were a little dramatic, guess what? that is what Indian cinema is all about! after watching this movie, at least you don't get a headache from all the loud overrated music, or any violence, its just the truth, it teaches about love, and of course caring for the person you love throughout life...i think it was an amazing movie...Kids can watch it without a doubt, and adults will enjoy the simplicity that used to be India's sure profoundness...until all these rap hits, miniskirts, and skin showing became a part of it.",Positive "This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's ""Nashville,"" Lumet's ""Network""), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick (""Chicago"" and ""The Hours"" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison – his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with ""F"" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of ""One,"" a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.",Negative "This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.

The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is ""unintentionally funny"" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.

Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time.",Negative "Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion.",Positive "I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.

The movie begins with promise. I liked ""The Exorcist"" parody, especially the ""come on out, ma"" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, ""It was just a booty call!!"" That was kinda funny. 2) The ""Save the Last Dance"" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.

The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately.

As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.",Negative "Ride With The Devil directed by Ang Lee(Crouching Tiger) is another gem in this fine directors cap. For those unfamiliar with the history of the Kansas-Missouri border wars during the American Civil War. See this film & you will visit a sad piece of Americana. Besides some superb action scenes (quite bloody at times). This is a story of love & devotion between men & one lady in particular. It stars Toby Maguire, Skeet Ulrich Jeffrey Wright & as the young lady Jewel, I never heard or seen her before, I want to see more of her).The acting is top notch, superb production values, very well written (adapted from a novel)

This is a long film 128 minutes, but well worth seeing.

my rating is ****

respectively submitted

Jay Harris

",Positive "I went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny "" what, what did he say"", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).

We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10",Negative "This movie was charming. An accountant wants more from life than the approved conventional success. What makes it work so well, and makes it so different from the standard dance movie is that it really isn't about becoming ""Great"" it is simply about finding a way to express one's self. The big triumph at the end is not the winning of a contest, not the discovery of a whole new life style, but the simple joy of doing what you want to fulfill the other parts of your life. No one is discovering their passion, they are finding their quiet soul.

The Japanese background makes the subtle oppression and ""secret life"" of ballroom dancing both understandable and personal. We can all see ourselves in the everyman.",Positive "This film is unusual and bizarre, and it is nearly unusual and bizarre in a very good way. I give this short a 7 just because it is so unique and off-the-wall, but much of the time it seems as though it is being bizarre just for the sake of being bizarre. If the film had managed to integrate its more bizarre moments into some semblance of a plot then it would have been really fantastic.

The main problem here is that it looks as though the creators just jumbled together a bunch of crap about spatulas, then threw in a whole bunch more crap that sounded as though it would sound funny coming from the mouth of a spatula.

This is definitely worth checking out, but it is not top rate by any stretch of the creators wild imaginations.",Positive "I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie.",Negative "I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.

I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.

For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.

see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.",Negative "I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.

My rating was an 8.",Positive "Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8.",Positive "While watching this movie I was frustrated and distracted and by the end, I wanted to give the movie a solid 4 or 5. I thought the animation was random and all over the place and there was too much going on. Even my A.D.D couldn't keep up. It felt like a slight acid trip. Everything looked flat, there was no dimension to anything. There were so many shapes, lines and patterns. I really wanted to stop the movie mid-way and smash my burned copy of this movie. But after I finish watching it, I went online to read up on the movie and I should have done a little research into this movie before watching.

The Secret of Kells is loosely based on the true story about the original Book of Kells. A small boy, Brendan, is given the task of penning new pages in what is set to be the greatest book ever written. This book will contain information that will help ""change darkness into light."" Brendan lives in the village of Kells behind huge stone walls. Taking place in the 8th century, Brendan's uncle, the Abbot of Kells, is trying to build the wall to keep the Vikings out. Brendan's uncle insist he help complete the wall, but a traveler and keeper of ""the book"" secretly trains Brendan to hone in on his illustration skills, and convinces him to complete ""the book"" and carry out it's word.

The entire time I watched the movie I thought I was missing something because I didn't really understand what was going on. I figured I was just missing a piece of Irish history. A simple Google search taught me all I needed to know about the original Book of Kells. After reading many articles, my opinion of the movie greatly changed.

The Book of Kells is a copied version of the first few books of the New Testament transcribed into Latin by Gaelic monks in Ireland in the 8th century. Along with it's paleographic and insular script, the book is also beautifully illustrated in insular art, a type of early art form know for it's intricacy, complexity, and miniature illustrations. Much of the art in the Book of Kells is depicted as lots of art was at the time, flat and dimensionality challenged with no perspective. But what makes the Book of Kells stand out from other early pieces of art is it's use of many colors.

The Secret of Kells is very colorful. I originally thought the animation was flat and boring. It reminded me a lot of the cartoon Samurai Jack which also had a flat and ""amine"" look to it. Once I learned about the art styles of the Book of Kells, it's obvious that many of the styles from the book are mimicked in the movie. There are lines and swirls and various shapes that inhabit Brendan's mind. Whenever he goes into his imagination, circular shapes resembling the sun, cogs, clocks and wheels begin filling the screen. The edges of the screen become framed in decorated moving triangles or circles. Transitions are filled with color, and Celtic knots. From the trees to the floors, many things in this world are covered in shapes or patterns.

Clocking in at 70 minutes minus credits, The Secret of Kells is a fun little history lesson with a little adventure and silliness thrown in to keep people (maybe just children) interested. I think one has to generally be open-mined to The Secret of Kells as half art piece, half movie about history. Despite looking like it was animated with Adobe illustrator, It's a very nice looking movie. But based on the 20 films submitted for Oscar consideration, I don't think it was worth being nominated over Mary and Max.

ThatWasJunk.Blogspot.com",Positive "I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.",Negative "What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.",Negative "Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.",Negative "The premise of Cabin Fever starts like it MIGHT have something to offer. A group of college teens after finals (in the fall?) goes to a resort cabin in the woods where one by one they are attacked by an unseen flesh eating virus.

Unfortunately, the first paragraph is where any remote elements of film quality stop. Cabin Fever is little more than college kids looking for sex, booze, talking non-stop about nothing, and seeing how many F-bombs they can get into 1:40 minutes or however long this mess is.

The kids act and react stupidly to everything around them. One of them for instance discovers that the skin virus has infected her legs, so what does she do? She keeps shaving her legs failing to take proper medical attention for her wounds. The scene is little more than a gross out. In another scene, Rider Strong from ""Boy Meets World"" gets bitten on the hand by some kid who only says ""Pancakes"" and likes to do karate kicks on those who sit next to him. If you can figure out the reason for why the ""Pancakes"" kid was included, I'd love to know. Anyway, Rider pets a wild dog and goes off to wash his bitten hand in a most likely contaminated creek. Another kid likes to drop F-bombs in reacting to everything around him and shoot squirrels. Why? Your guess is as good as mine!

Rider Strong is the ONLY kid with any recognition in this movie. He tries to calm people down in-between the yelling and screaming and F*** Y**! bombs that people are throwing around. When the kids aren't yelling, they are having or talking about sex or talking nonsense to the other adult characters who are EVEN MORE (if that is possible)idiotic than the kids! The idiot cop with an IQ of 60 at best may be one of the WORST acting jobs I have ever seen in a movie. You talk about people not playing with a full deck, this dork doesn't even know how to find the cards! LOL! I was like, ""Will you PLEASE shut up already?!"" He makes the kid actors look like geniuses! The only part that I sort of liked was Rider's scary story (although gory) about the deranged bowling alley guy. In interviews, Rider said that he had a great deal of respect for director Eli Roth. But the problem is that Mr. Roth appears to be going for little more than shock and gore. There are far too many bad things about this movie for Mr. Roth to get any credit. I wish I could agree with Rider and find something likable about this movie. Maybe the fall scenery in the beginning? Actually, Rider Strong JUST saves this movie from being a 1! Hopefully, he was compensated for this junk!",Negative "An ultra-modern house in an affluent neighborhood appears to be the cause of each of its inhabitants bizarre (and deadly) behavior. Or at least that is what Lara Flynn Boyle's character, Col Kennedy, argues. After a series of deadly occurrences in a gargantuan house next door, Col knows something has got to give. Mark-Paul Gosselaar also stars as the mysterious architect.

My opinion: The House Next Door works because of Lara Flynn Boyle and the locations (beautiful house) and stylish sets. Boyle is a talented and dynamic actress, not to mention absolutely stunning. She brings credibility to her character and makes the film intriguing. Without her, it would have failed. ""It's so alive"" declares a prospective buyer in reference to the house. Yes, it is alive. But the story itself is not so much.

Barring Boyle's presence, not much is happening here, as an enormous amount of the movie is spent watching or waiting to see how the house will affect its current owners. The results are predictable. But I liked it anyway. The cinematography lends the film a polished look. 8/10 on account of Boyle, the premise of an evil ultra-modern house, the locations and cinematography, and set decoration and wardrobe.",Positive "It was such a treat when this show was on because it was such a fresh, innovative, and original show. This makes every show I've ever watched look plain boring. The moment the first episode aired I was entranced and I became attached to all the characters so easy (which usually never happens because I always hate a few characters). It is a pity this show won't have a third season, because it has to be one of the best shows I have ever seen and that isn't exaggerating my feelings for the show at all. Nothing can ever replace Pushing Daisies, because what could ABC possibly find to replace this show? This is easily the best show on television.

I came for Kristin Chenoweth and I stayed because I fell in love with the entire show.",Positive "This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent ""Man Called Horse"" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.

The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.

The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.

A huge disappointment.",Negative "It's a funny business, reviewing movies. These days when ""internalized emotions"" and ""emotional detachment"" are favored over straightforward sentimentality, it must be hard to stay faithful to your true feelings.

Soon after completing jury duties at the 58th Berlinale, I managed to catch Yoji Yamada's Kabei.

After the screening, I watched folks dreamily amble out of the theatre hall, watery-eyed, men, women, and reviewers alike. Even the director of the Berlinale, obviously a hardened viewer of cinema, confessed to having been caught unawares and found himself crying three quarter's way into this unashamedly sentimental experience.

But what really surprised me were the reviews that came after. Despite being ineffably moved by the film, many reviewers chose to be tepid and emotionally non-committal in their writing. Apparently, post weeping, they had put on their ""thinking cap"", and consequently, missed out on what I felt was the genius about Kabei.

Allow me to explain.

Set in pre-war Japan, the story of Kabei revolves around one writer's family, and their fate therein, after he is held in jail for what was described as ""thought crimes"" against the Imperial will. Through a series of protracted emotional scenes, Yamada gets us familiar with the man, his loyal wife and two daughters, as well as three side characters—the man's pretty young sister, a bumbling ex-student, and a cad of an uncle – all come to help the family cope with their plight, in the absence of the man of the house.

The story moves along at a slow albeit steady pace, and heartbreaks occur at precisely the moments everyone is able to predict. This of course makes it near impossible for anyone in the audience to get too emotionally distraught by any dramatic event.

In other words, although you learn to love the family and their helpers, and sympathize with their unfortunate situation, you get so lulled by the certainty of the plot that you find yourself expecting a particular kind of ending.

However, two hours into the film (don't worry, Yamada provides the viewer with sufficient moments of gravity and levity to tide you along), he slaps you with what I can only describe as ""the sting"". All that you have assumed to be what the story was about—an innocent man wrenched from his faithful wife and daughters – now suddenly points to one of the family helpers. Someone you have hitherto taken for granted is now thrown into an unexpected twist of fate.

At this point, something curious happened in the theatre I was in. Everyone started sobbing with little or no inhibition.

""My word!"" I muttered under my breath. It struck me then that ""Kabei"", in the final analysis, was more than a film about a family torn apart by an empire on the verge of war. It was, in fact, a cunning examination of one common human foible: How little we cared about the secret feelings of people who are closest to us.

Now, the most common criticism made about the film was that it was technically solid, but lacked innovation. That's what happens when reviewers put on their proverbial thinking cap, I guess. With Kabei, I believe Yoji Yamada knew exactly what trick he was going to employ to touch on one unique aspect of humanity. A wicked old trick he so seamlessly applied in the Tora-san series, and later, in Tasogare Sebei.

After lulling the audience into a sort of narrative comfort zone, he throws us into a realm of emotions rarely explored in cinema.

This, to me, is the most effective cinematic tool of all. One which avoids detection, but affects you deeply. And proof of its effectiveness was a thousand wet pieces of Kleenex, thrown into a litter bin just outside of that thousand-seater cinema hall.

Now if only some reviewers would resist being so caught up with being smart that they forget what cinema is really about. Human emotions. Pure and simple.",Positive "I was one of those ""few Americans"" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.

I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.

Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!

I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.

But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)",Negative "You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the ""quirk of the month club"" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.

As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.

Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word ""been"" like ""bean"", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's ""The House of Games"". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.",Negative "Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.

There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.

And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that.",Positive "Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few ""Jim Carrey moments"", it's definitely not a ""Jim Carrey movie"".

It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.

The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience!",Positive "I've seen this movie twice with my teenagers who love it. This one ought to be a cult fave! The best line, ""Your dress is deeply cool!"" says the Prince to Cinderella. Kathleen Turner shines as the stepmother. I also like the 1950's era cars and motorcycles. The melancholy prince is a great departure from the typical swashbuckler. He tries to stay cool, but fails to hide his love for the fairy-tale princess-to-be. Her slipper is not glass (truer to the original story), but Cinderella loses is nonetheless but gets it back from the heir to the throne. My only complaint is that it is not shown more and seems to be almost impossible to get. Hopefully Blockbuster or Amazon will start stocking this one sometime soon.",Positive "The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.",Negative "The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it.",Negative "This Film was done in really poor taste. The script was really bad. I feel really sad for the late Gregory Peck who took on the title role of this B-movie adaptation of one of history's greatest generals. The movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the Japanese in World War 2. There was a scene where I almost vomited, it showed Macarthur in a bunker in Corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded, one legged Filipino soldier. The soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says : `no papa, no mama, no uncle sam' and Macarthur gives his little pep talk that Americans `would never abandon' the Philippines. The scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by Macarthur's words and gives him a smart salute. I mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the U.S. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. It showed that Filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great Americans solely for redemption. It blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of The Far East), these are Filipino volunteers that were integrated in the US military during world war 2, who died side by side with the Americans fighting the Japanese, who walked side by side with Americans in the death march of Bataan and defended Corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after Macarthur left for Australia with his famous `I shall return' speech. My late grandfather, a Filipino world war 2 veteran and USAFFE soldier was one of the many who fought the Japanese with honor and love for the home country. I think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that Macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the Leyte gulf landing.",Negative "LOC could have been a very well made movie on how the Kargil war was fought; it had the locations, the budget, and the skill to have been India's ""Saving Private Ryan"" or ""Black Hawk Down"". Instead it come across as a bloated, 4 hour bore of trying to meld the war move with the masala movie. Even the war scenes were terribly executed, using the same hill in all their battle scenes, and spending unnecessary time on casual talk. Instead of trying to appeal to the indian public, a better movie would have been a to-the-book account of what happened at Kargil (like ""Black Hawk Down"") or even spending time on the militant point of view (like ""Tora, Tora, Tora""). Even better, it could have used a competent director like Ram Gopal Verma to write, direct and edit the film. Until then, I'd like to see some one re-edit this film, with only the pertinent portions included; it would make the movie more watchable.",Negative "For anyone who's judged others at first meeting, here is the perfect tutorial on depth of character. The grumpy old lady has a soft, thoughtful heart - and needs new friends. The flighty, unsure, 'ditsy' dame who makes inappropriate, uncomfortable comments - sees deep into your soul and has pure love for all. The cold, prim, proper, neglected wife has passion simmering that could boil over at any minute - given the right setting. The perfect beauty - rich, sweet, partying, pursued by throngs - wants peace, quiet, and love without possessiveness.

By taking the time to look beyond the surface, you will find treasures in everyday life, from the least expected sources. All it takes is patience and a touch of enchantment.",Positive Ronald Colman gives a terrific performance as a stage actor who really gets into his work. When he plays Othello on the stage he takes on the persona with dire results. Good film with a great supporting cast. Well worth watching.,Positive "John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, ""Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it"" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the ""southern"" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of ""Faith"". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.",Negative "Most italian horror lovers seem to hate this movie since because it has no connection to the first two Demons films. And with the ""Demons III"" in the title, one would assume it would. The problem is that this film was never intended to be part of the Demons series. The distributors only a ""Demons III"" above its original title ""The Ogre"" to cash in on the other films popularity. The new American DVD release of this picture has the title ""Demons III: The Ogre"" on the box art but the film itself only says ""The Ogre"". I don't know if past releases had the title ""Demons III"" on the actual film itself, but this new release just seems to be a little white lie. If you can get past the ""Demons III"" in the title, you might some enjoyment in ""The Ogre"". It starts out with a creep intro, and stays pretty creep throughout. There's no gore and the film movies slowly, but I still dug it. Just don't expect it to be like the other Demons films. I give ""The Ogre"" 7 out of 10. Italian fans should try it out.",Positive "The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.",Negative "This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).",Negative "Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever.",Positive "Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.

This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.

Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.

And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.

All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.

I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.

It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.

I gave this one a very generous 3.",Negative "Really touching story of a recruitment camp in America, where young men are prepared for the Vietnam war. The human study always appealed to me when it comes to war movies, because it translates personal, subjective opinions on war, opposed war action movies where action, and technical data are being analyzed to the prejudice of the human factor.

The movie manages to put a new spin on an already ancient subject, and manages to distance itself from usual war movies, especially by focusing on an anti-hero from the view-point of traditional standard. The movie focuses on the tragic character of Bozz, who smartly avoids being sucked in by the dehumanizing war machine, and refuses to give up control over his destiny and fight for something he doesn't believe in, spends his energy in searching ways to avoid being sent overseas, both for himself and comrades and ironically ends up finding his own just reason for finally going to war. Perfect irony.

The acting is truly exceptional, and the documentary-style shooting almost makes you feel transposed into the movie. Also the movie will provide food for thought for those exhilarated by the action in usual war movies or war-games enthusiasts, hopefully awakening some minds of a generation which luckily escaped the terror of being drafted.",Positive "A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after ""Murder By The Book"").

Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....

A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.

Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since ""Murder By the Book"" was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.

Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story.",Positive "I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.",Negative "Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.

Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's ""Ran"". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near ""Ran's"" league.

Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's ""Seven Swords"", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.

Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights.",Positive "Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote ""reserved"" for his ""book,"" which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after ""In Cold Blood."" Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.

Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.

So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to ""do it now"" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer ""attitude mode"" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.

Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.

What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic ""interpretation of life and death"" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.

The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic ""non-fiction novel"" do not control these interpretations and performances.

If ""In Cold Blood"" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss.",Positive "The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film!",Negative "I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.

I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.

The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as ""Lesbians team up to fight monsters."" Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for ""Are you afraid of the dark?"" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.",Negative "All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines ""do not compute"". They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it.",Positive "**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**

Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself ""why would you do that?"" or ""what's your point in doing this?""...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity.

- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH.

- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?

- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.

- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.

- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!

I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.

Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at?

ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen.",Negative "Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.

When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.

""Modern Romance"" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.

As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful ""Broadcast News."" James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.

Fans of ""Modern Romance"" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.",Negative "I recently had the pleasure of seeing The Big Bad Swim at the Ft. Lauderdale Film Festival and I must say it is the best film I have seen all year and the only film I have ever felt inspired to write a comment/review on. This film was beautifully directed and combined a script with realistic dialogs, excellent acting, and an inspiring message. Ordinary lives come together in an adult swim class and become extraordinary in a celebration of the diversity of life. This is poignantly illustrated by the imagery in the first minute of this captivating film where we see only the legs and torso of individuals in various shapes and sizes enter into a pool of water. This film is brilliantly directed as the actors are placed and positioned in captivating scenes, which hold your attention and imagination.",Positive "I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original ""War Games"" if you are feeling nostalgic.

I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.",Negative "For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.

This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.

If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.",Positive "Paul (Jason Lee) is an underachiever who just happens to be engaged to a type-A princess named Karen (Selma Blair). She chooses his clothes and his daily schedule. At his bachelor party, Paul gets a little too drunk and somehow ends up taking a pretty dancer named Becky (Julia Stiles) back to his digs. ""Nothing happened"", as they say, but the duo do wake up in the same bed. Suddenly Karen telephones. She's on her way to Paul's apartment. Understandably, Paul hustles Becky out of the place, although her underpants are left behind. But, there is even more fun ahead. At a family dinner at Karen's parents' home, Paul runs smack into Becky again, learning that she is Karen's cousin. Talk about some explaining to do! But, instead, Paul chooses to feign a stomach problem and hides out in the bathroom. Will Karen ever find out that Becky spent the night at Paul's place? And, what will be the consequences? I'm sorry for critics who pan movies like this. They should definitely lighten up, for this film is fresh and fun. Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that Lee is a consummate funny man, Stiles is a charming beauty or that Blair is a natural as a pretty but anal fiancée. The rest of the cast, including James Brolin and Julie Haggerty, is also quite nice. The look of the film is wonderful, as are the costumes and California settings. Best of all, the script is imaginative and inspired, creating big laughs for the audience. In short, if you want to tickle the proverbial funnybones, get this movie tonight. It may not be Academy Award material but it is absolutely guaranteed to turn a bad day into a darn good one.",Positive *****Warning: May contain SPOILERS********* My HUGE problem with this movie is how totally self-centered and self consumed the adulteress wife is!! After having a one night stand with a slimy psycho she is being stalked by him. He calls her constantly and threatens her and even sends a video of their night together. He is OBVIOUSLY crazy and very dangerous. The problem is she only thinks he is dangerous to HER (and exposing her secret). Not for one second did she ever have one thought of concern for her husband! Did she even for a moment think of him possibly being in danger from this psychotic?? As soon as she realized how mental he was she should have warned her husband no matter what the consequences. Maybe there wouldn't have been a movie then but there really wasn't one anyway so what's the difference.,Negative "i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10",Negative "I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.",Negative "This film is so bad it simply defies reality. The filming is grade school material at best, the acting is pathetic and the director should forever be banished from film making in any form. So bad it can't even be watched as comedy such something along the lines of Showgirls. The ONLY thing this DVD had going for it was the cover art.

All I can write to those of you who haven't had the misfortune to witness this is to please do yourself a well deserved favor in advance and don't waste your time or your money on this piece of garbage. If you want to see a movie for the comedy aspects, there are many other more worthy in such a realm than this trash.",Negative "It's great how this movie pulls you along. I had honest laughs. Don't care that it's low budget cause the thing works for me. To be honest my wife didn't really go for it in the same way but she prefers a different type of film. She did admit though that it was very creative and well put together and probably all on a shoe string. These characters who's lives are strange and troubled give me something to relate to in my own world. Just keep going and be who you are. Dreams are what you make of them. In watching this movie a second and third time I realized that there are some hidden moments that passed by me on the first time through. What can I say, I like my fun with some complexity. Anyway liked it. Hope to see more.",Positive "I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting ""No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The ""zombie""? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????"" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends!",Positive "this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10",Negative "This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the ""fantastic"" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the ""Grand Finally"" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a ""NOT"" . In ""Buffy the vampire Slayer"" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!",Negative "While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

""Before Sunrise"" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose ""Before Sunrise"" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): ""Antes do Amanhecer"" (""Before Sunrise"")",Positive "Boston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this ""production"". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of ""Benson"" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk ""is"". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as ""Crash"" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!!",Negative "Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.

Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.

So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing.

",Positive "Fatal Error is a really cool movie! Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., Janine Turner, Jason Schombing, Malcolm Stewart, and David Lewis are in the film. The movie's cast all acted really well. Robert Wagner played his role good. The relationship between Saboto Jr. and Turner was a nice one. There maybe a big age difference there but they are a unique couple. The two actors really worked together rather well. The music in the film is really good by Ron Ramin and fits the flick very well. There is a bunch of stuff that happens in the movie which you don't know what is going on and what is going to happen next and this movie keeps you going from beginning to end. If you like Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., and Janine Turner then watch this excellent movie!",Positive "This movie is just too funny, a totally non-PC gangster romp. If Mel Brooks made a picture about the Mob in the 30's, it would probably look like this. Too many great one-liners to to remember, and while its not for everyone, anyone who DOESNT laugh a whole bunch of times doesnt have a pulse. So, put it on and LAUGH you Iceholes!!!",Positive "I really enjoyed this one, and although the ending made me angry, I still give it 10 out of 10.

Four college girls (Baltron, Kelly, Stahl and Cadby) are driving down to Florida, on their way they meet 2 guys (Turner, Davis), they really add nothing to the plot, but are at least somewhat likable. The girls agree to meet the guys in Florida for some fun, but they have car problems and never make it. One of the girls decides to go to a nearby gas station for help, the other three stay by the car.

Soon one of the girls has to use the bathroom, being in the middle of nowhere she has no choice but to go in the bushes. Soon she witnesses as a man (March) strangles a woman, in terror the girl flees the area, she doesn't get very far, but manages to get lost.

Her friends by the car go looking for her, they too go into the woods and run into the same man, one of them sees the dead woman, the man responds by shooting the girls head off, the other girl runs away, manages to make it back to the car where she is also killed.

Eventually the two remaining girls find each other and because they break into the gas station get arrested. This is when I started getting mad, these poor girls are afraid for their lives and the redneck cops don't believe them.

They are treated badly and one of them is left alone for the madman to kill her in the cell, the remaining friend manages to escape, but not without getting in dangerous situations.

This movie has nudity, good actresses, a shower scene imitating Psycho, graphic violence towards women and solid story. Some women will probably find it offensive and sensitive individuals will NOT like the ending, but over all, this is a great little unknown movie.",Positive "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier.",Positive "This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.",Negative "I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it.",Negative "At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice.",Positive "What can one say about Elvira that hasn't already been said in the world's press? The classic comedienne that IS Elvira delivers in her first full-length big budget comedy masterpiece.

From the very first movie frame thingy, Elvira packs an acting punch that clearly says Film Great....eat your heart out, Bette Davis! See a forlorn Elvira, see an excitable Elvira, see a jealous Elvira, see a murderous Elvira. You can do nothing but marvel at her acting prowess!

At the heart of this comedy masterpiece is Elvira's desire for Las Vegas show stardom. Despite putting ""the boob back in the boobtube"" as a horror hostess (with the mostest), Elvira finds the small screen constrictive emotionally....and PHYSICALLY! Nuff said, she packs up her kitbag and heads East....a hotdog in one hand and a letter from her Aunt's lawyer outlining her inheritance 'windfall' in the other.

I've seen this movie so many times, I can almost recite it verbatim....(verbatim would just be showing off)!

Grab a copy, laugh yourself silly, learn the lines....

Why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar for this role is beyond me.",Positive "Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of ""comedy"" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless ""football"" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line ""How can I turn it off? It's not a tap"" - watch to find out what it refers to). ""Dragon Lord"" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**)",Negative "This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well.",Positive "I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values.

Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?",Negative "Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.",Negative "`An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.'",Positive "I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes.",Positive "Although well past the target audience, I've always had a soft spot for YA fiction, so, I was naturally intrigued by the return of Nancy Drew to the screen.

This is not a bad film. The central mystery involving a long dead actress is presented in straightforward simplistic terms with dashes of jeopardy for the young sleuth. Nancy and her friends never take the threats seriously, so young audience members will not be upset.

What I really appreciated from the story was the final results were rather serious and meaningful and Nancy seemed to understand and grow from the experience.

Emma Roberts is great as Nancy Drew and hopefully we'll see her again in another mystery.",Positive "The film starts out very slowly, with the lifestyle of Wallace Napalm, an attendant at a photo-service drop-off station. His wife has been restricted to her home with an ankle bracelet as the result of a sentence for arson. Wallace is a member of the volunteer fire department, and takes firefighting seriously.

As we watch Wallace's rather dull life proceeding, suddenly there comes something new and jarring: a traveling carnival comes to town. One of its stars is Wilder Napalm, Wallace's brother. He's a clown, but he has a special talent.

So does Wallace. They're both pyrokineticists or ""pyrotics,"" people capable of starting fires through mental energy. Wallace keeps his powers secret; Wilder lets his acquaintances know what he can do.

Spoiler: Some of their differences go back to a childhood incident where they inadvertently caused the death of a vagrant. Wallace holds back from using his powers; Wilder wants to go public on national TV.

Complicating the matter, Wilder wants Wallace's wife, whom they both dated years earlier. She becomes a bone of contention, and becomes one of the reason that the brothers finally have a literal firefight.

The film is entertaining, but not laugh-out-loud funny. I think enough of it to have a copy in my library. It's a good offbeat film.",Positive "This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure.",Positive "(No spoilers, just plot details) I can't understand such hatred for this episode. You want to watch a bad episode of Smallville? Watch Subterranean - now there's a sack of crap. Tom Welling gives a good performance (I don't say that very often), and Michael Rosenbaum is great, but he is most of the time. The alternate universe scenario seems eerily realistic. The Martian Manhunter, who previously appeared in ""Static"", returns and tells Clark that the doctor that is the head of the insane asylum where they are being held at is actually a phantom from the phantom zone, and if Clark wants to return to his universe, he must kill him. An overall great episode, with good acting and a decent pace.",Positive "If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.

The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.

John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.",Negative "The cast is excellent, the acting good, the plot interesting, the evolvement full of suspense...but it is hard to cram all those elements into a film that is barely 80 minutes long. If more time was taken to develop the plot and subplots, it would have a much better effect. Another 30 minutes of substance would have made this a very good film rather then just a good one.",Positive "I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.

Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.

Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.

There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.

However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.

The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.

Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.

Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.",Negative "It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes (""Snap out of it!""), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!",Positive "The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.

Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button.",Positive "A very refreshing story, the life of a parrot with an intellect higher than an average human's. Shows humans from a bird's point of view. Especially liked the portrayal of different types of characters that the bird spends time with. Not all birds are bird-brained...",Positive "I must say I was impressed the cinematography was amazing, the frames close to perfection and the way he built up the tension around a subject that sound more like a dreadful bore is beyond be.

The film is about two narrators, one seen, one unseen. They are both trying to explain the significant of a series of painting that caused a scandal a long time back. The film is all about theories and explanations of views but the conclusion is quite shocking I must say. Definitely a film that deserves more than it's 171 votes.

With only 66 minutes to play out it's plot the film still felt like a complete work. Fantastic direction! I must say far better than Blood of the Poet which it for some strange reason remind me a bit of.

I suppose you can call it by the slang word ""artsy"". It's pretty much just a lot of professional talk about various theories and stunning visual effects but the crew and Ruiz did pull it off. At least for me. An amazing film.",Positive "I have always enjoyed the Pokemon movies. Yes, I know, all of them are very corny, mediocre in some certain areas and sure, even though they're aimed at little kids they're too adult in some fields to be able to guard them with the statement,""Hey, lighten up, it's a kids movie,"" but all that aside, aren't they still good pieces of entertainment? In my opinion, they are so and I enjoy them greatly. This one is just as enjoyable as the previous three, and certainly cuter. It has some really sweet and touching moments since it is the introduction of the lovable, fresh Pokemon Celebi. It's not the best Pokemon movie, but I do enjoy it more than the third installment, even though the third is not bad, and the entire series is just entertaining, harmless, popcorn family fun and should be considered nothing more, nothing less. This film has some high marks of intensity and interest, especially around the climax/ending, as do all the installments, and the characters, while a bit more lackluster than the previous three, I thought, are still likable and humorous. This films is the lowest rated and most criticized of the four feature length adaptions, and it doesn't deserve that.",Positive "This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake.

You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.

The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture.

What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.

I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.

Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon.",Positive "I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist.",Positive "Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing"". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things?",Negative "Don't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.",Negative "I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.

It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.

I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try.",Positive "After a long period in the space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who got married and has a son with Richard White (James Marsden). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.

After so many delightful movies of Superman with the unforgettable Christopher Reeve, or TV shows like ""Lois and Clark"" (and Teri Hatcher) or ""Smallville"", a great expectation was created for the return of Superman in this Bryan Singer's version. Unfortunately, the awful story is too long and boring, with many unnecessary parts, lack of emotion and overrated in IMDb. In addition, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman is something shamefully ridiculous. The twenty-two years old actress Kate Bosworth is wrongly miscast, playing the role of a mature reporter and experienced mother of a five years old boy. Brandon Routh is two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays a teenager Clark Kent in ""Smallville"". The character of Parker Posey, Kitty Kowalski, is actually a silly caricature. Last but not the least and in spite of being a terrific Lex Luthor, Kevin Spacey is forty-five years old, therefore older and older than the rest of the lead cast. The corny conclusion looks like a soap opera and is terrible. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""Superman Returns""",Negative "Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think ""what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place"", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.

Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.

Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.

Okay...I'm alright now.",Negative "Emilio Miraglio's ""The Red Queen Kills Seven Times"" (1972) is just about the most perfect example of a giallo that I have ever seen, mixing all the requisite elements into one sinister stew indeed. First of all, and of paramount importance for me, it has a complex, twisty plot that ultimately makes perfect sense, and the killer here does not come completely out of left field at the end. The story, concerning a series of gruesome murders (you already know how many from the film's title, right?) that takes place in seeming fulfillment of an ancient prophecy concerning two sisters, is an involving one, and the murderer, a red-cloaked figure with the insane laugh of a madwoman, is both frightening and memorable. Every great giallo requires some lovely lead actresses, and here we have quite an assortment, headed by the ridiculously beautiful Barbara Bouchet as one of the two sisters and, in one of her earlier roles, Sybil Danning, as a lustful tramp at Barbara's fashion house. Another necessary ingredient of a superior giallo is a catchy, hummable score, and Bruno Nicolai provides one for this film that should stay with you for days. Gorgeous scenery? Check again. Filmed largely in Wurzburg, Germany, the picture is a treat for the eye indeed. OK, OK, but what about those murders? After all, isn't that what gialli are all about? Well, I'm pleased to report that most viewers should be well satisfied with the various knifings, shootings, impalements and other carnage that this film tastefully dishes out...not to mention the crypts, freaky dream sequence, rats and bats (and LOTS of 'em, too!), the drug references, a rape scene, the obligatory red herrings and, in the person of Ugo Pagliai, a hunky leading man for the female viewers. As I said, a perfect giallo. And even better, this DVD is from the fine folks at No Shame, and you know what that means: a gorgeous print and loads of extras, to boot! Thanks, guys!",Positive "To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch ""My Darling Clementine"" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting.

In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.",Negative "I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:

1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer?

2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is ""SOOOO in love with Lisa,"" I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.

3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?

I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.

HOWEVER.

This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film.",Negative "Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.",Negative "I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.

My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.

Try them both.",Negative "I watched this film based on the very favorable reviews that I read about it here by others.

They definitely saw something in this movie I didn't see, that's for sure.

The movie starts off at a good pace, and the first 15 or 20 minutes of it are interesting, then it begins to get logged down and draggy, not to mention completely unbelievable.

Eventually you find yourself saying: ""What?!? He's going to do that too? Just how far is he going to go with this thing?""

The plot begins with Jeff Goldblum's character, John, going into a deli to purchase a bottle of wine. There is a robbery and a new store clerk, Auggie Rose, gets killed during the robbery.

John gets in the ambulance and goes to the hospital with the guy. This seems a little much, but wait, there's more.

John becomes totally obsessed with Auggie Rose.

For reasons that never make any kind of logical sense, John, who has a very good life, a beautiful, loving girlfriend, a secure, well-paying job, nice house, nice car, expensive suits--decides he wants to be a loser like Auggie Rose was, and experience life in a low paying job, living in a dump with a dippy girlfriend and possible connections with dangerous people.

Why this dim-witted, half-baked film got favorable reviews I'll never know. Sure Goldblum does a good acting job - he always does - and his looks have improved with age -- but unless you have a BIG infatuation with Jeff Goldblum and have to see every film he's in, I wouldn't recommend this turkey. It's approximately two hours of your life you're not going to get back - and believe me - you'll have nothing to be thankful about when those two hours are over, other than being grateful you're not still sitting there watching this film!

",Negative "Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George ""Gabby"" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.

Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a ""dual role"". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched.

*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm",Negative "Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of ""Attack of the killer tomatoes"" kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...

If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful.",Negative "What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.

The best part of the whole movie was the song ""Ishq Kamina"", and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap.",Negative "Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)",Negative "A number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- ""Young Winston"", ""Gandhi"", ""Chaplin"". ""Grey Owl"" is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.

Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.

The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.

The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a ""fraud"". His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.

According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.

One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is ""miscast"" as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like ""The Hill"" or ""The Molly Maguires"". Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.

Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is ""boring"". Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like ""Gandhi"", and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10",Positive "Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.",Positive "Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the ""Breathless"" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than ""What about bob?"". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours.",Positive "This is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's ""monster"". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male ""hero"" who is an ""artist"" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because ""women like that don't exist"" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.",Negative "I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.",Negative "There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think ""Blue Desert"" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK",Negative "It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In ""The Secret Lives of Dentists,"" starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.

Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary ""friend"" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in ""Fight Club"").

While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.

By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. ""The Secret Lives of Dentists"" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.",Negative "This movie was laughably bad. A friend rented it from Netflix and made me watch it. There are so many gaffes and goofs that it's impossible to even bother getting to know the characters and the plot. How about these for example...

The ""Vermont Airport"" surrounded by palm trees

Ben's miraculously appearing shirt during a phone conversation

The priest's palatial office... complete with a folding card table desk

There is a decent story hidden behind a very bad movie. But even if you look past the technical flaws, you'll find horrid acting and casting. I was most tickled by the casting of a flamboyantly gay actor to play the right-wing religious zealot brother. His opening scene, sitting in his immaculate apartment, stroking his kitty cat, was hilarious.

I applaud the writer/director/producer/editor/star/caterer/cast dentist/composer (and whatever else he did on this move) for actually getting a movie like this distributed. If you have nothing better to do, it could be a fun group movie or even the basis of a drinking game but don't rent it for a powerful story about homophobia and gay marriage.",Negative "THE BLOB is a great horror movie, not merely because of the vividly horrific images of its nearly unstoppable, flesh-dissolving title character, but because it features a real societal message. It is, in many ways, a ""feel-good horror film."" The clever storyline is helped immeasurably by solid performances from the entire cast. The two romantic leads, Steve McQueen and Aneta Corsaut, bring surprising depth and sentimentality to the proceedings. They are misunderstood but very well-meaning young people, and it's very easy to root for them.

This is a pro-society movie, and its juvenile delinquent characters cause trouble mainly out of boredom, not out of some malevolent character flaw. Steve McQueen's drag-racing rival almost appears to be an enemy early on in the proceedings, but quickly joins in McQueen's campaign to save the town from the oozing invader once he sees McQueen's seriousness. In this way, a character situation that at first appears to be cartoonish suddenly develops depth and human realism.

The authorities' initial skepticism of the kids' wild claims is proved wrong--and once the threat is acknowledged by all, all conflict within the society disappears. This unification of purpose, and the validation of the ""troublemaking"" teens, becomes official when Aneta Corsaut's father breaks into the school to obtain the fire extinguishers needed to freeze the Blob. On any other day, breaking into the school would be considered an act of vandalism typical of a juvenile delinquent--on this particular day, it is a necessary action performed by an adult authority figure. At this turning point, it is clear that there are no lines of division between the young and the old.

This is an unusual film in that it acknowledges the perception of a ""generation gap"" but suggests that it is more imaginary than real, and that given a real crisis, people will naturally band together to restore order. ""The Blob"" is a perfect tonic for the kind of depression that generally comes with a viewing of ""Night of the Living Dead"" (1968).

Much has been made of the film's cheap but innovative (and effective!) visual effects. They are undeniably clever. A lot of the gravity-defying tricks we see the Blob perform were achieved with miniature sets designed to be rotated. The camera was typically attached to the sets in a very firmly ""locked down"" position (the lights had to be similarly attached so that the lighting remained steady as the room was turned this way and that). These scenes were often photographed one frame at a time as the room was slowly turned--the silicone blob oozed very slowly and its action needed to be sped up. In a way, this was similar to stop motion photography, but utilizing a blob of silicone rather than an articulated puppet. Even today, the effects are startling and bizarre.

A very good film with an exploitative-sounding title, THE BLOB is a must-see.",Positive "Tony Hawk Underground came at a point where the series was really starting to lose its luster, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 did not live up to expectations and left the series really up in the air on what Neversoft and Activision could do with the series that would be different and interesting.

Underground introduced the storymode, which was very cool because it made a whole new world for Tony Hawk Pro Skater fans. Another feature introduced which fans pretty much argued for and that was being able to get off the skateboard, which is nice because now you can actually climb, run, and do all sorts of new things.

The levels are good, Neversoft also improved on an issue that started with Pro Skater 3 and that was the length of the level designs. The first two games for the PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were great because the levels were nice and long and some hidden features in some. Pro Skater 3 and 4 were shortened because of a handful of features that were added and really pushed the systems too their limits. In this version, they shortened those features, there isn't as many people wondering the streets, in fact there are almost none in some levels, and the graphics and the skating physics are toned down a little but not a lot.

This game does have one con, the storymode is a little short, of course this is Neversofts first time doing this with Tony Hawk Pro Skater, so that is understandable. However, with that being said you will definitely finish this game within a day.

Overall, a great addition that was very refreshing.",Positive "There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.

(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)",Positive "Standard ""paint-by-numbers"" monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script.

Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of ""Guess who ends up as a monster meal"" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.

Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by.

Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.

Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one.",Negative "There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.",Negative """Pushing Daisies"" for sure is one of the best TV shows of its genre in the last 5 years, agree you with that or not. Bryan Fuller, the creator, has an amazing creative mind. He's the mind behind other great TV Shows as ""Dead Like Me"" (2003), ""Wonderfalls"" (2004), and the other one not as great as these ones, but also interesting, ""Heroes"" (2006). It's a mix of the marvelous worlds Brian Fuller created in previous TV shows, mixing once again an amazing fantasy world with real kinds of people disguised into colorful images and exaggerated feelings, something that a fairytale always is. So, being a kind of fairytale, you cannot expect more than a unrealistic world and unexpected situations, or also situations a lot expected but not in a way that it would usually be told.

A gift always comes with a curse, and what is sweet can also be bitter. That's so, Ned (Lee Pace), The Piemaker, is a simple guy with an interesting gift other than being an amazing chef: he can give life to the dead with just a touch. This could be a power that everybody would die - or live - for if wasn't for another simple and very sad thing: he can also gives the forever dead if he touches it again. The curse of this amazing gift doesn't stops there... everything has a compensation and if he brings anything to life for more than one minute, another specie of that one would die instantly. He's a guy full of unfortunate events in life in a way that he grown up introspectively, always afraid to touch everything and lose once more things he one day used to love. Till the day he could finally be close to his biggest childhood love, Chuck (Anna Friel), if wasn't for another sad fact: she was dead. He gave her life again and she loves him so much as he does, but this love is untouchable. The truly kiss of death. And that's how this beautiful modern fairytale starts.

When I heard about ""Pushing Daisies"" for the first time it was promoted as something very familiar (or maybe some kind of tribute) to everything that Tim Burton has created since ""Pee-Wee's Big Adventure"" (1985) to ""Big Fish"" (2003) and ""Charlie And The Cholate Factory"" (2005). The results could not be better. The world around The Pie Hole was magnificent. The stories around Ned and Detective Cod (Chi McBride) to solve unsolved crimes can be a lot common in TV, but this is just a way to guide people thru amazing stories surrounding characters as Chuck and Olive (Kristin Chenoweth) in a wonderful world full of beautiful and dreamy images that you can almost sense the taste of the colors. Not only that, you are merged into a bunch of amazing and charismatic gentle characters, even those ones with the most deep dark humors.

Forgetting the trivial concept of murders and unsolved crimes, the show brights and is triumphant in a lot of other things. The actors here are top of note. Lee Pace is tender, soft and contained as the character asks for. Anna Friel is the muse of the show as her character is supposed to be. But the most superb times are always with the supporting actors as Chi McBride (Detective Emmerson Cod), Swoozie Kurtz (as Lilly Charles), Ellen Greene (as Vivian Charles) and Kristin Chenoweth (as Olive Snook). Swoozie Kurtz shines performing a so dried character drowned in a impossible dark humor that could frighten a clown, for sure she has the best dialogs and her expressions and body languages are mesmerizing. But if the best dialogs are given by Swoozie and her character, the best funny moments are given by Kristin Chenoweth. Seems that she's improvising all the time, she's so naturally fun that every single scene is a show aside. Kristin shines so bright in the show that winning the 2009 Emmy for her supporting role in the show was totally fair and deserved. Also there's the chemistry between actors and their characters, that are also amazing.

There are no words to express what this TV Show really is and what it was meant to be. For those ones who think this show is a waste of time or claimed to find no sense in it, for sure needs to open their minds and comeback to a time that they probably never had: childhood.

Truth be told... TV has never been so daring in a TV Show as with this amazing one. ""Pushing Daisies"" was a huge step forward in terms of great artistic entertainment and its sudden death was a lot disrespectful. It's true that TV doesn't respect great TV shows as those ones Bryan Fuller created - except ""Heroes"" that's still on air and is far from being so amazing as the other ones.",Positive I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!!,Positive "With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.

The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.

In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.

This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal ""serial killer back from the dead"" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut.",Negative "The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.

The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon.",Negative "I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as ""April Fools Day"", ""Friday 13th"" and ""Prom Night"", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory.",Negative "What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, ""Who put Shaq in this movie???"" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I ""wish"" this movie would go away.",Negative "Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.",Negative "Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.",Negative After a long hard week behind the desk making all those dam serious decisions this movie is a great way to relax. Like Wells and the original radio broadcast this movie will take you away to a land of alien humor and sci-fi paraday. 'Captain Zippo died in the great charge of the Buick. He was a brave man.' The Jack Nicholson impressions shine right through that alien face with the dark sun glasses and leather jacket. And always remember to beware of the 'doughnut of death!' Keep in mind the number one rule of this movie - suspension of disbelief - sit back and relax - and 'Prepare to die Earth Scum!' You just have to see it for yourself.,Positive "I love movies. I love independent efforts and major studio productions. I love films with stars and I love those featuring unknowns. I love dramas, comedies, action-adventures, science fiction, mysteries, westerns, any genre except horror. I love foreign films as well as those in English. I love good movies and I even love bad ones, because almost no film ever fails to entertain or amuse on some level. Except for ""Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.""

When I attended a late-night showing of ""Cowgirls,"" I joined an audience of around 10. Less than halfway into it, I alone remained. Soon not even I could tolerate the disturbing mess unfolding before my eyes, and I left as well. To this day ""Cowgirls"" remains the only movie I have ever walked out of.

I don't quite know how to describe this incoherent, vacuous, trashy, meaningless film, or how to adequately convey its lack of redeeming value. Suffice to say that it ranks as one of the worst major films of all time, preposterous and inexcusable on every level. It tries to be clever, but its conception of feminism seems hopelessly anachronistic. It tries to be funny, but its humor is coarse and cringe-worthy. This is one of the few films which manages to profane its own ethos, by depicting protagonists in so off-putting a manner that you revolt against them and their values. If you want to watch a movie, watch ""Waterworld,"" ""Ishtar,"" anything but this. Except for the new ""Alexander."" If you're choosing between that and this, read a book instead.",Negative "I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.

This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.

The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.

But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.

If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very ""delicate"", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.

Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a ""delicate"" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.",Negative "Stanley and Iris' show the triumph of the human spirit. For Stanley, it's the struggle to become literate and realize his potential. For Iris, it's to find the courage to love again after becoming a widow. The beauty of the movie is the dance that Robert DeNiro and Jane Fonda do together, starting and stopping, before each has the skills and courage to completely trust each other and move on. In that sense it very nicely gives us a good view of how life often is, thus being credible. Unlike some other reviewers I found the characters each rendered to be consistent for the whole picture. The supporting cast is also carefully chosen and they add a depth of character that the main characters get added meaning from the supporting performances. All in all an excellent movie. The best thing I take from it is Hope.",Positive "I just finished watching ""El Otro"". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.",Negative "After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, ""We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it"" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, ""I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip"" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The ""reasoning"" behind each plot turn and new ""clue"" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for ""never shutting up."" She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a ""Dr."" title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, ""Don't you ever shut up?"" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....",Negative "Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's ""Move On Up"" without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong.",Positive "It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the ""Kingdom"". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).",Positive "This is a very real and funny movie about a Japanese man having a mid-life crisis. In Japan, ballroom dancing is not approved of. But when Shohei Sugiyama becomes obsessed with meeting the beautiful young girl he sees in the window of a dance studio, he suddenly finds himself enrolled in dance classes. No one is more surprised when he begins to like it than he. But he must keep his secret pleasure from his coworkers and family. When the truth comes out it is quite funny.",Positive "I was glad to watch this movie free of charge as I am working in the hotel industry and this movie came lately to our movie library. Nothing against low budget movies, but this movie has horrible acting and directing. How can a movie as this one ever be made. The director should be blacklisted, and for all the poor actors, it is for sure not a jumping board into a career. Please make sure that you'll not watch this movie, the acting is lame, the camera and directing awful. There are just a few more movies out there which deserve to be called the ""LOW 10"". Another example would be ""Dracula 3000"". People who make money with this movie should give it to charity, so at least it serves for a good reason.

In this case I would watch it even another 10 (or at least one more time).",Negative "Even though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.

As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.

This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions.",Negative "Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.

Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.",Negative "Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. ""Otherwise,"" as he said, ""what am I doing?"" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.

Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: ""What do you think the play lacks?"" ""Hope,"" says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.

Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play (""Aging, who goes to see that?"" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.

The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as ""The Second Woman"" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.

One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.

It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean?",Positive "Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.

There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).

I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.

--PolarisDiB",Negative "The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.",Negative "An excellent film with great performances from Zack & Lochley. Much to their displeasure (& mine) Garibaldi arrived on station. (All due respect to Jerry Doyle but in Seasons 4 & 5 I lost sympathy for the character.) It doesn't take him long to start criticizing Zack (who I love best of all on the show)and taking charge. I'm sure Zack could have coped. The Soulhunter plot is fascinating, especially if you believe in heaven as Zack does. The humour supplements it nicely. 10/10",Positive "I was lucky enough to catch this movie while volunteering at the Maryland Film Festival. I've always been a fan of classic horror films and especially the gimmicks of William Castle, so this was definitely a must-see for me.

This is about the life and work of William Castle, who in my opinion was an underrated director. True, he made some cheap budget schlocky horror films, but he added something to these films: real live theater gimmicks that you don't see anymore. For example, he had nurses in case someone had a heart attack at his movies and put vibrators at the bottoms of chairs in THE TINGLER.

This is truly a well-made documentary and brings this rather shadowed director into the light, and celebrated his contributions to horror cinema. It also paints Castle as a larger than life character, who was very well-liked and had a smile on his face.

Unlike most film documentaries that mostly show testaments from film historians, SPINE TINGLER! shows interviews mostly from his family members and directors who were influenced by his work, such as John Waters, John Landis, and Joe Dante. A must see for classic horror and sci-fi fans.",Positive "Where do I start? Per the title of this film I expected some degree of authenticity, in the end I was severally let down. This is not the story of Lale Andersen or the song Lili Marlene, rather it is a Hollywood (or pick your film making hub) story loosely based on some real life characters. I should have had a clue when I heard a heavy English accent giving the intro to the movie in German; the blood red text (title, artists) should have been the 2nd clue. The story line is contrived (Lale was not tricked out of Switzerland Rolf Liebermann's parents, there is no info that Liebermann helped smuggle Jews from Germany, the original song had been recorded outside of the control of the NS regime not while under control, the record played at the station was picked up in Vienna while a Lt. was there on leave, etc, etc) the costumes are poor and incorrect for the time frames (SS black uniforms used every where from border guards to staff positions, these went away from daily use once the war started, etc), the characters are stereo types (SA bullies in a club once they were essentially out of power). Don't waste your time.",Negative "I wasn't at all a fan of the 2005 gore fest hit ""Hostel"", and most of these lame ass knock-offs are just as bad or worse - yet ""Live Feed"" managed to keep me somewhat entertained for about the first 30 minutes. Started off with plenty of sex and sleazy settings, followed by some good death scenes involving the Chinese Organized Crime Squad and a 7-foot, leather-aproned butcher... What put me out of the movie was the tough 'hero' with the guns and a grudge saving the day... I would call this movie mediocre, at best, since a premise mainly involving obnoxious young people being slaughtered in a seedy porno theater, doubling as a hideout for the mafia, is appealing to me. If only the torture was prolonged enough to be thoroughly effective, then my rating would have differed greatly. Unfortunately, most of the gruesomeness is heaped together in one scene, leaving the rest of the movie to conclude as a revenge-type scenario. So, basically, it IS just a low-budget ""Hostel"" rip-off with the redeeming use of gratuitous sex, almost constant during the first half of the film... Overall, I would say don't bother with this one.",Negative "I don't have much to add to what has been said before, but it's very much a film of it's time, and the first (and likely only) time that the studio hung the film totally on the Dead End Kids.

The Warner's gave the boys plenty of help, from director Ray Enright and an 'A' budget, to an almost magical cast of supporting actors. At every turn, we get one of those gem performances from real pros. They are too many to list, but it seems like just about everybody on the Warner's lot (Sans the very biggest stars) walk through this picture. (See if you can spot John Ridgely)

The only over the top performance is from the always reliable Eduardo Cianelli as a mob boss with a messianistic complex. He plays this character almost exactly like that of the Thuggie leader in ""Gunga Din"". He's something to watch! And Marjorie Main is excellent and gets her best role since ""Dead End"".

My bid for this one is a second feature on a double bill with something like ""City for Conquest"".

Hooray for Warners!",Positive "Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.

The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!",Negative "Today, Bea Arthur died so I was cruising around the IMDb Web site and somehow wound up on a show called ""Gloria."" ""All In The Family"" was a brilliant show for its first four or five years and I bet I watched every episode more than once. However, I swear that I did NOT know a show named ""Gloria"" existed. Maybe, that's a good thing. Maybe, it means I had a life as a young adult rather than watching television.

On the other hand, it is pathetic that the ""All In The Family"" franchise had deteriorated so much that it begat a show I never heard of -- and one that is rated very poorly by the previous reviewers.

I rated the show a 1 for two reasons -- the system did not allow me to register a no vote and writers and TV execs should be condemned for starting a show that had no business being on the air and besmirches the memory of one of the greatest shows in TV history.

Shalom, ZWrite",Negative "Regardless of what personal opinion one may have of Walerian Borowczyk grotesque yet beautiful gem ""La bête"" of 1975, one has to admit that this bizarre gem is an absolutely unique cinematic experience. Borowczyk erotic fairy tale was banned in several countries for a long time, and it is quite obvious why this controversial gem fell victim to stuporous film censors. ""La bête"" is a fascinating blend of intense and beautiful fairy-tale-like atmosphere, quite explicit eroticism and genuine weirdness that bravely refuses to take any compromise. The fact that beastiality (of sorts) is one of the film's central themes did certainly not help it with the censors, but it made it highly controversial and therefore known to a wider audience.

Pierre de l'Esperance (Guy Tréjan), the head of a French aristocratic family, has arranged for his somewhat demented son Mathurin (Pierre Benedetti) to marry Lucy Broadhurst (Lisbeth Hummel), the young and beautiful daughter of a wealthy English family. Due to an old curse, Mathurin's uncle (Marcel Dalió) is strictly against the wedding. When Lucy and her mother arrive at the French estate, Lucy immediately gets fascinated with a portrait of the 18th century ancestor Romilda (Sirpa Lane), and with an old book depicting bizarre drawings. The story soon descends into a bizarre sexual fever-dream... Without giving away too much, I can say that fans of exceptional cinema should not consider missing this film. As bizarre as it is, ""La bête"" is doubtlessly also stunningly beautiful in style, settings and cinematography. The fever-dream-like atmosphere is present within- and out of dream-sequences. The forest estate and the imposing family mansion are magnificent settings, and the beautiful score and incredible cinematography build an overwhelming atmosphere for this grotesque tale. The very explicit sexuality ranges from erotic (elegant female nudity, ravishing actresses) to seriously demented and even somewhat disgusting (close-ups on horses' genitalia while having intercourse,...); in either case it is not likely to be forgotten. The entire cast of ""La bête"" is fantastic and all involved deliver great performances in eccentric characters (some of which are seriously demented). The film profits from an exceptionally beautiful cast, be it Lisbeth Hummel in the lead, Finnish actress Sirpa Lane (who sadly died of Aids in 1999) as the ancestor in the dream-sequences, or the relatively unknown but particularly ravishing actress Pascale Rivault, who plays the aristocratic daughter who takes ever opportunity to have sex with a black servant in a cupboard.

I am intentionally not giving a full description of the most important parts of the plot as they simply have to be seen to be believed. Some scenes are among the most bizarre ever caught on film, the scenes with the eponymous 'beast' definitely being among them. Certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but very highly recommended to fans of controversial and unusual cinema. A true cult gem!",Positive "Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!!",Positive "Thanks Jymn Magon, for creating Disney's 2 best cartoons ever. This show has improved very much over the years. As a kid, I didn't like it because I thought it was a rip-off of Ducktales, which was my favorite Disney thing at the time (like Grandmoffromero). Then later on though it was good but not great. But after reading the reviews here, I decided to give it another chance & bought the DVD set & watched the whole pilot the first day I got it, & was very pleasantly surprised. It's still my favorite episode, although the series did live up to it. And by the end of disc 1, I knew this was going to be a top tenner.

The characters are so complex & charming. My favorite has got to be Wildcat. He's absolutely hilarious and sweet to boot. My next favorite is Baloo, the best pilot on the show. I can see why 'ol Jymn built the show around him. Then it's Kit Cloudkicker. He & Baloo have the best relationship in the series. After that, Louie. Jim Cummings did a perfect job of impersonating the original voice. After him, Rebecca. She has made me laugh pretty hard, and I do believe she and Baloo eventually marry. And finally(for the heroes), Molly. Although she's my least favorite, I still like her. I think she's a very cute character(much better than Webby from Ducktales). And the villains were very original. Don Karnage & his air pirates always crack me up, Kahn is ice-cold and ruthless, and the Thembrians are always at least amusing.

As said before, the stories range from hilarious(Time Waits For No Bear, Romance of Red Chimp) to nothing short of touching(The Old Man & the Seaduck, Paradise Lost), to fun, funny & exciting adventures(In Search of Ancient Blunders & my favorite For Whom the Bell Klangs). These are only a few of my favorite episodes. Anyway, Talespin is Disney's best, aside from Gummi Bears Some reasons for this? GB had a decent amount of my favorite character(Cubbi), while TS didn't have enough of Wildcat. But in the end Talespin remains a classic. BOTTOM LINE- 10/10 6th best cartoon ever.",Positive "I'm among millions who consider themselves Cary Grant fans, but I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie.I don't understand the casting of Betsy Drake and it appears no one else did,if we're to judge from the small number of films in which she played afterwards.

Most fans will agree that Katharine Hepburn was superb at chasing and catching Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.Here the director or writers try to rehash the idea,but it fails miserably.I've read comments about how ""creepy"" Drake was,but I thought that was far too mild a description. Franchot Tone walked through this one as if he were hungover.A casting disaster is one thing.This film is a total disaster.

This one doesn't deserve 10 lines of comments and I don't know why that's a requirement.Too bad this one was preserved when so many worthwhile films lie rotting in vaults.

Unless you want to torture someone,give this one a wide berth.",Negative "This is another North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula.",Negative "For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.

Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these ""boys"" and ""girls."" The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.

It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled ""Surprise, Surprise"" that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's ""mirror dance"" has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.

For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.",Negative "This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation.

Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience.",Positive """The Notorious Bettie Page"" (2005)

Directed By: Mary Harron

Starring: Gretchen Mol, Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, & David Strathairn

MPAA Rating: ""R"" (for nudity, sexual content and some language)

It seems as though every celebrity nowadays is getting a biopic made about his or her life. From Ray Charles to Johnny Cash, biopics are very posh right now. ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is the latest of these to be released on DVD. It features Gretchen Mol as the world's most famous pin-up model, Bettie Page and was filmed mostly in black and white with certain excerpts in color. Unlike ""Ray"", ""Walk the Line"", and ""Finding Neverland"", however, this movie is not going to be one to watch out for at the Oscars this year. This movie lacks the emotional resonance displayed in other biopics and most of the more dramatic moments in Bettie Page's life are either completely ignored or only merely suggested. This does not mean, however, that it is a bad movie. In fact, ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is a thoroughly entertaining and fulfilling movie--a solid work of cinema. This film focuses more on Page's exciting career and the thin line between sexuality and pornography. It is filmed with fervor and care and Mary Harron's direction captures the look and feel of the time period as most filmmakers only dream about.

Everyone knows Bettie Page (played by Mol). Whether you know her as an icon…or a simple porn star…you know her. She is a woman who had a very profound impact on American culture only by revealing more skin than deemed appropriate at that particular time. Now, most people know her as one of America's first sex symbols--a legend to many models, especially those of Playboy and other adult-oriented magazines. She lived in a time when showing just an inch of flesh below the waste could have someone arrested and Page's bondage-style photos were just the thing to push the American public into an uproar. In fact, the photos launched a full-fledged senate investigation about common decency and the difference between harmless films and porn.

The performances in ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" are absolutely wonderful with Gretchen Mol standing out. Her performance as Bettie Page is simply brilliant. I understand that, when she was announced for the role, many people were skeptical. Her name is not one that immediately leaps to my mind when I think of great performances. Now, it will. She completely aced the role and drew me in with her vulnerable and yet deeply engaging performance. David Strathairn is fresh off of last year's ""Good Night, and Good Luck"", in which he gave one of 2005's best performances. Here, he gives yet another fine performance…even though he is slightly underused. I was shocked at how very limited his screen time was…but quality over quantity is always the most important aspect of any good movie. The only performance I have seen from Lili Taylor was that in ""The Haunting"" (1999). While most people ignored the movie, I found it to be an enjoyable, if not completely shallow, horror movie and I also have always thought that Taylor was perfectly credible as the emotionally-distraught Nell. Here, Taylor gives yet another credible performance. She gives a very subdued performance and delivers the perfect performance to compliment that of Gretchen Mol.

After everything was said and done, I realized that ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" cannot be compared to other biopics, such as ""Finding Neverland"" and ""Walk the Line"". It is incomparable to these because it tells a story of a woman and her career, from the beginning to the end. Her personal life is briefly implied, but it is really her impact on the world that becomes the high point. We watch the film knowing that Page will eventually bare all and we know the impact that her decisions will have…but we are rarely shown the impact that they will have on her personal life. She is a woman that never looked back and could constantly reinvent herself. After all, she was an adult model turned Christian missionary. This movie does not over dramatize anything. It could have included fictitious moments of Page sobbing hysterically and begging God to forgive her. It could have shown Page running and screaming through the rain, trying to escape the ghosts of her past…and yet it does not. ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" tells a simple story and that is something rare by today's standards. Fortunately, it is quite refreshing.

Final Thought: ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is a relaxing movie with absolutely amazing cinematography.

Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)",Positive "I saw this feature as part of the Asian American Film Festival in New York and was horrified by the graphic, sado-masochistic, child pornography that I witnessed. The story line is hidden beneath way too many graphic sex scenes - and, not one is in the least bit erotic - sick is the more the feeling. The director seemed to be going for shock value rather the exploring the various levels of why these characters are like this. See it if you can stomach it - I still have flashbacks.",Negative "This is the most compelling and excellent performance that Robert Taylor ever gave. It even surpasses his wonderful performance as ""Johnny Eager"" coming a full 14 years after that film. His looks are still a wonder to see, but he has a maturity now that gives him the edge in this gritty, violent role. Charlie Gilson (Taylor) is the last of his breed, a buffalo hunter who kills not for the money but for the pleasure. His wild eyed killing of not only buffalo but human beings, is stunning to watch. He is basically a lonely man, needing the people around him, but they dislike him because of his sociopath behavior. His partner is Sandy McKenzie (Stewart Granger) who is sick of the hunt, and only goes along, because he is a failure at anything else. Along the way Charlie kills a family of Indians and captures the beautiful Debra Pagent. Charlie tries to seduce her to no avail, but sees that Sandy is interested in her also. Granger is kind of sad to watch, so fed up with the hunt, longing to go away with the girl and her baby. Lloyd Nolan as the drunken skinner is wonderful with his wise cracks and accordian playing. Russ Tamblyn plays the half breed trying to fit in a white world. The group is an odd mix of good and evil, young and old. In the end Taylor gets spooked by the buffalo, as many hunters before him had, and runs off leaving Sandy with the girl. Upon his return, that night Sandy leaves with the woman, setting Charlie off on a rampage of killing in a quest to get Sandy and have the girl for himself. The final confrontation comes in a snow storm and the last scene is so shocking that you will never forget it. It is Taylor's film all the way and he was truly a much underrated actor of the era.",Positive "Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved!

Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband… Dracula).

Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.

Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *",Negative "I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school.",Positive "Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.",Negative "I think it great example of the differences between two cultures. It would be a great movie to show in a sociology class. I thought it was pretty funny and I must say that i am a sucker for that ""lets band together and get the job done"" plot device. It seems most people don't realize that this movie is not just a comedy. It has a few dramatic elements in it as well and I think they blend in nicely. Overall, I give it a solid 8.",Positive "If John Thaw had never played ""Morse"", ""Kavanagh"", or starred in ""The Sweeney"" and other productions, he'd be remembered for this wonderfully unforgettable performance in ""Goodnight Mr Tom"".

Superbly supported by an equally tremendous performance by his co-star (young Nick Robinson in his first role), and an unobtrusive cast, this adaptation of Michelle Magorian's charming novel is a fitting memorial to his art.

When I read this story of an old widowed Norfolk countryman having to accommodate a young boy from London before and during the Blitz, I found a rather obvious time-line error in it, and credit must go to the makers of this film for rectifying this error. They also must be applauded for not over-sentimentalising the tale, and preventing what could have been turned, quite easily, into a mushy mess.

If you keep a CD or video library then this feel-good made for TV movie is an absolute must inclusion.",Positive "Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions.

Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips!

I also think the topic of ""young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives"" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills.",Negative "The thirties horror films that are best remembered are always the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein; and there's a very good reason for that, but there were a number of smaller but nevertheless excellent productions, and The Invisible Ray is certainly one of them. The plot is not particularly original and similar plots have been seen many times before (even way back in 1936) but the way that everything is put together is certainly very imaginative and director Lambert Hillyer has created a very nifty little original horror film. The plot focuses on the good hearted Dr Janos Rukh; a man who has discovered a way to recreate the history of the Earth. His discovery leads him to believe that there may be an unknown radioactive element somewhere in Africa and so he sets off along with a team of esteemed colleagues to find it. However, tragedy strikes while on the expedition and the good doctor ends up becoming exposed to the element; which makes him glow in the dark, and also sends him mad...

The biggest draw of the film is undoubtedly the fact that it stars the two biggest horror stars of its day - Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, and both give excellent performances. Karloff really shows what a good actor he is and his character has plenty of meat for Karloff to impress with. Bela Lugosi has a role which is extremely different from what we're used to seeing him in, and it's a great performance from him also; it's nice to see a bit of versatility from Lugosi. The film does get off to a rather slow start; but things soon start to pick up. The second half of the film is the best and that's really when the film gets exciting and Karloff gets a chance to shine (literally). The film does not put its focus on big special effects and largely relies on the actions of the central character to keep things interesting; and it does work very well. The film remains interesting throughout and boils down to a very decent climax that wraps everything up nicely. Overall, The Invisible Ray may not be one of the very best horror films of the thirties; but it's a very good one and comes recommended.",Positive "This is a really interesting movie. It is an action movie with comedy mixed in. Foxx teams up with comedian Epps in this movie to give it a comedic spin. It will keep you wondering whats going to happen to Foxx next. It was a well shot movie, the director used the right colors in this movie(dark blue colors) to give it the right kind of feel. Kimberly Elise also starred in this movie and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. She plays her role well. Even Jamie Kennedy is in this movie. It's worth seeing it you haven't seen it. It's definitely worth having if you are a Jamie Foxx fan. It deserves more credit than it is actually given.",Positive "I first saw Ice Age in the Subiaco Cinemas when it came out, back in '02. I was only 13 at the time, but even then I liked it. It had some sort of warmth.

We've had it on video for a number of years now and no matter how many times you watch it, it never gets boring. This is because of the one element which makes it different from all of the other 3D animations made at the time - The characters have no particular 'home' which they leave. They are nomads, and that's really refreshing and uplifting to watch.

Also, each individual character on the surface, appear to be just putting up with each other, but they're really all good friends. As well, all of the characters have their own charms (even the bad guys). Sid the sloth is charming in his annoying, over-affectionate and naive sort of way. Manny is adorable in his depressed, reclusive character, and so on and so forth.

Another great point about the movie is the beauty of the animation. All the environments and characters were modeled originally by clay, giving the film an artistic edge.

Another aspect that adds to the feel of the movie, is that gender means very little. There are hardly any female characters, but you don't really realize that until after you watch it a few times and even then it has little effect on the way you view the film. Due to this, there's also no mention of a nuclear family which would really be pathetic in a setting like the ice age.

All in all, Ice Age is a great movie and is proof on how much effort was put into 3d animations before Shrek 2 and The Incredibles came out.",Positive This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie!,Negative "A magical journey concocted by Alexander Korda and Michael Powell. These two TITANS of the British cinema have mixed some fabulous ingredients to produce a movie masterpiece! Some of the most ravishing early Technicolor, a SUBLIME and shimmering Miklos Rozsa musical score along with the youthful exuberance of Sabu, the theatrical and malevolent villainy of Conrad Veidt and the exquisite beauty and voice of June Duprez as the princess all work wonderfully well. Miles Malleson who plays Duprez father, the Sultan of Basra, also wrote the perfect screenplay which is appropriately grandiose. DON'T MISS THIS ONE! Since posting the above comments, I have obtained the recently released DVD and can honestly say I'd never seen the picture properly until viewing this DVD version-The clarity and resolution is so precise and the colors are so vivid that I was stunned-This amazing classic can be watched time an again and never fails to charm and delight the viewer. Again, A MUST SEE!",Positive "Punctuating the opening credits sequence is a swarthy man having a strange, all-too-real nightmare. Closing in on its dystopic 2054 Paris, the film begins to follow a woman into a grungy club, where she and a Slavic bartender convene outside on the deck. They toss exclamations at each other to the effect that she owes him more money although she believes she's paid it all. Another woman obstructs the budding violence, only to have a bitter fight with the woman herself. The initial woman storms out, and she is kidnapped. Christian Volckman's Renaissance appears to be another one in an assembly line of recent motion-capture-animated sci-fi noir pictures, but in spite of whether or not that is essentially true, it tells a neatly arranged, classically unraveling detective story that keeps us in the dark in its opening minutes, even whilst introducing Karas, the hard-boiled cop we recognize from the beginning as the man awakening from a terrible dream.

The rudiments of classic film noir are all hit upon without any anachronistic changes, for all intents and purposes. It is in the harshness of its monochrome that Volckman's French thriller has followed no example. For the film's animators, unfettered by the challenges of physical lighting that would normally be faced, have been able to begin with a totally black frame, and to affix utter pitch-white according to the action on screen. As they scrupulously imitate the effects of real light sources throughout the frame, the distinction of black and white here is full-blown without even any of the slightest shades of gray to tone with the characters' less starkly definite moral codes, and the outcome is a harsh and judgmental vision of the direction in which commercial civilization is going, sporadically caused to undergo the most blaring and ruthless of illumination. It is the artistic study of film noir taken to their visual boundary of its philosophy, and nothing before has ever shared quite the same execution of this visual concept.

All the characters in this decent cyberpunk film seem as if to have been walk off with purely from a Gothic comic book in black ink, but all together their physical responses, their motions and the nuances of their facial expressions look ashore within a clear humanity. Normally, films that try out new developments in animation allow their technical advances upstage all other facets of production. Sin City, for example, left substance and overall good screen adaptation from its source material to be desired.

It may not be mind-blowing, it may have its narrative conventions and its voice-over cast may simply be adequate, but Renaissance, made for $19 million over six years, not only feels like actual noir instead of a rashly penned appropriation, but also is not secondary to all the visual innovation, which is played as if to be incidental. One leaves thinking not so much about how cool it is when Karas is evading bullets shot through a crowded glass Parisian street, but more about its ponderance of life and death, how life's tragedies, such as death, make life meaningful.",Positive "I was having just about the worst day of my life. Then I stumbled on this cute film, watched it, and now I'm ready to go out & kiss a streetlamp.

I have to admit, I only watched it for 2 reasons: VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS. But it's really so much more. The plot is actually quite clever and creatively woven. It's almost like a Shakespearean comedy with all of its delightful misunderstandings. And of course there's also... VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS.

The only unfortunate aspect of this film is that the version I purchased (the ""100 Family Classics"" collection by Mill Creek Entertainment) doesn't have the best video quality, and I've heard the same about the Alpha release. The brightness and contrast are a bit too high, so a lot of the scenes seem bleached out especially when Vera is dancing in a white dress. But I suppose you can fiddle with the controls of your TV set to compensate. I can only imagine how it looked on the big screen back in '51. The stage sets, costumes & colours are otherwise dazzling & delightfully creepy--sort of in a ""Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"" vein.

As far as the romance goes, this is just perfect. Not sappy, not contrived, not melodramatic. Just 100% ahhhhhh. Too bad, you poor schmucks, your miserable lives will never be as charming as this. Har har har. Wait, what am I laughing at? My life sucks just as bad as yours. Oh hell. Time to watch this movie again.",Positive "Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.

I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.

With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.

The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.

The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.

Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.

It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.",Negative "Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.

Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.

Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again?

Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.

And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?

OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?",Negative "Richard Dreyfuss stars in ""Moon Over Parador,"" a 1988 Paul Mazursky film also starring Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, Jonathan Winters and Charo. Dreyfuss plays a New York actor, Jonathan Nolan, in the Caribbean country of Parador to make a film. When the dictator dies suddenly, the Secret Police Chief (Julia) who is the one actually controlling the dictator and the country, drafts Jonathan to play the dictator, having noticed the resemblance between them. Soon Jonathan is ensconced in the palace as Alphonse Simms, and Simms' prostitute girlfriend Madonna (Braga) who realizes the switch promises to help him in any way she can.

Mazursky, who appears in drag as Simms' mother, gives us a look at how the CIA operates in third world countries. The Winters character, supposedly a salesman, is actually a CIA operative. The film, however, flirts with but doesn't really tread on very serious ground and is more of a send-up, and a funny one at that.

Richard Dreyfuss does a fabulous job as Jonathan the actor and Alphonse the dictator, creating two separate characters and nailing both. The gorgeous Sonia Braga is great as Madonna, and Raul Julia hands in a wickedly funny performance as Strausmann, the man behind the dictator. It's one of those performances where you never quite know what the character is thinking - he can be pleasant or turn psycho at any moment. Charo is on hand as a maid and manages to be funny and unobtrusive at the same time.

A very good film, not a big blockbuster, but very entertaining.",Positive "A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, ""Saving Grace"" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.

Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage.

Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in ""Saturday Night Fever"" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.

Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in ""La Femme Nikita"", is memorable.

Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10.",Positive "I love Paul McCartney. He is, in my oppinion, the greatest of all time. I could not, however, afford a ticket to his concert at the Tacoma Dome during the Back in the U.S. tour. I was upset to say the least. Then I found this DVD. It was almost as good as being there. Paul is still the man and I will enjoy this for years to come.

I do have one complaint. I would of like to hear all of Hey Jude.

Also Paul is not dead.

The single greatest concert DVD ever.

***** out of *****.",Positive "Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?

The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.

There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.

There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.

There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??

A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.",Negative "It is always sad when ""fringe"" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. ""Panic"" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.

William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, ""Panic,"" initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.

More than once I was reminded of his performance in ""Fargo,"" another strongly character-driven movie. In both ""Fargo"" and ""Panic"" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.

Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.

Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.

In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like ""Panic,"" but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, ""Panic"" is unmissable. A+.",Positive "There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.

This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.

Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.

For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.

Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the ""family"" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.

Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.

Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town.",Negative "Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.

In this film ""White"" chicks are the sluts, ""White"" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) ""White"" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.

I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. ""He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks"".

Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand ""white boys"". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.

It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the ""white boys"". Just because Samoans choose to call us ""white boys"" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.

Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.",Negative "Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'

'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.

The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.

'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.

This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.

Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.

Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.

As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.

** out of 4

Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr",Negative "The word ""1st"" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.

1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.

The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.

Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.

The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.

In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. ""Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ."" !!!!",Negative "Eric Stoltz delivers an extraordinary performance as Joel Garcia, a successful young novelist who winds up paralyzed and in a special hospital for the recently disabled after breaking his neck in a hiking accident. While learning to cope and adjust with the gravity of his new limited physical condition Joel befriends slick, fast-talking, charming womanizer Raymond (an amazing Wesley Snipes) and boorish, surly, racist biker Bloss (a terrific William Forsythe), who feels threatened by the diverse multi-ethnic array of fellow patients he's forced to share a room with. Joel also receives substantial support from his loyal and loving, but married girlfriend Anna (radiantly played by Helen Hunt). But he still must come to terms with being disabled on his own.

This remarkable movie's key triumph is its laudably stubborn refusal to neither sanitize nor sentimentalize the severity of what these men are going through. Directors Neil Jimenez (who also wrote the thoughtful and insightful script) and Micheal Steinberg relate the story with exceptional taste, wit and warmth, specifically addressing with disarming candor and matter-of-factness how being handicapped irrevocably alters one's lifestyle, including and especially your sex life (this point is most powerfully made in a striking sequence when Joel and Anna try and fail to make love in a motel room). Besides the expected poignancy, the film further provides a surprising surplus of wickedly funny raw, earthy humor that's highlighted by the uproarious sequence with Joel and Bloss making a secret nocturnal expedition to a strip club. The uniformly superb acting qualifies as another significant plus: Stoltz, Snipes, Forsythe and Hunt are all outstanding, with stand-out supporting turns by Grace Zabriskie as Bloss' doting, amiable mother and Elisabeth Pena and William Allen Young as compassionate hospital nurses. Despite the grim subject matter, the film ultimately proves to be a very moving, positive and uplifting cinematic testament to the astonishing strength and durability of the human spirit. A simply wonderful little gem of a drama.",Positive "Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.

Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.

Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.",Negative "Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****",Negative "For fans of Troma or the Cyberpunk genre mixed with a little blood shed then this film for you! There is a good amount of blood shed within the confines of this film, also the effects can be impressionable and awesome. The plot is ridiculous and refreshing, not being chained down to what we as audiences are expectant of from films these days.

Also notable are the little aliens, who I found cute. All in all, it's a good film for fans of the genre. Also recommended are films such as Tetsuo:The Iron Man and Versus for that weird Japanese film approach, filled with wonderful obscurity and bloodshed. Of course, seeing this film you should already have knowledge of the two.",Positive "This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary!",Positive "Bo Derek's beauty and John Derek's revolutionary direction make this film worthwhile.

Bo, looking more gorgeous than ever, is a recently widowed woman who is experiencing visitations from her 'dead' husband (Anthony Quinn). He has a plan. Bo must procure the body of a young man so that her ghost of a husband can make his transformation from spectre back to corporeal life. Can she find a fitting candidate? How will she do him in so Tony can do his thing?

With Bo's attributes, John's unique direction, Quinn's film presence, and, thanks to John, a very pretty exotic look to the entire film, this movie is pleasant viewing.",Positive "I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead.",Negative "What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.",Positive "I love the Satan Pit!!! David Tennant is such a great actor and so is Billie Piper!!! Who else loves Will Thorp to pieces??? He is so cute, isn't he? I hated the bits where he got possessed by the devil and where he got told to ""go to hell"", as Rose so bluntly put it. Mind you, he was quite funny when he said, ""Rose, do us a favour, will you? Shut up!"". Mr Jefferson was so brave, wasn't he? Dying to save the others. I felt really sorry for Toby (Will Thorp) when he came out of the possession for the 2nd time because he was so scared. I was like ""Oh my god if I was Rose I'd be so scared for him"". And when she hugged him I was like ""grrrrrr, he's mine! hands off!"" but I thought that was really sweet. And the doctor....well, I thought he was gonna say to Ida ""tell Rose I love her"" but he didn't. Oh well.",Positive "I have seen this movie many many times and I will never get tired of it. It is a classic in every sense of the word. The movie is hysterically funny and yet quite touching all at the same time. For those of you who are not a fan of ""subtitles"" or of foreign film in general, open your mind. This is a great movie for ""the beginner"" because the story is so entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it is 100% Japanese (and that is what makes it work), but everyone will get something out of it (even if it is just a great laugh at one of the main characters called Mr. Aoki - one of the funniest characters I have ever seen!)

I can't even think of this movie without smiling!! I love it ... and I think most people will too.",Positive "The greatest games of Kasparov or Fischer can be a mess for a total rookie. This is a great movie. There is no special agency involved in the plot. This is the clue! This is a PRIVATE plot, built as a PRIVATE enterprise. This is a self-destructive and a self organized plot. As a conclusion, the scenario described the perfect professional plot: private, self –organized, self-destructive, with no trace at the end. Anyone can be behind the plot: a smart ""director"" with some money. All can be done just by delegation. The ""director"" must be just trigger. If the normal viewer cannot see the essence of the plot in the explicit sequences of the movie, a real plot has fewer chances to be discovered. All the actors' performances are well done , with some special mention for Gene Hackman and Mickey Rooney.",Positive "This is something new.

There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.

A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.

See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).

And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.

This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).

Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points.",Positive "I had never heard of this film until I came across it by accident when browsing IMDB. I saw it had gotten many awful reviews containing very colorful expletives on how much it stunk. Of course this meant I had to see it. I was pleasantly surprised as Whipped is actually rather a good movie. I watched it with a group of friends and we laughed more than we had at many recent highly acclaimed Hollywood fluff comedies. This is an independent film and as such portrays its subject matter (sex and dating) without the usual Hollywood fakery. I distinctly suspect that people's opinion of this film will depend very much on their experience of life. If you've never dated or partied much you won't get this movie because you won't have met people like these characters. If you have, you'll recognize many of the situations that portrayed here in comedic fashion. The ending was also good, as it did not portray women as unreal, helpless, virginal romantics in contrast to many Hollywood movies.",Positive "I really enjoyed the detail that went into the script.

Jonathan Rhys Myers (misspelled) and Jewel were outstanding in their support roles. As was Jeffery Wright. Toby McGuire gave as fine a acting job as ever depicted, when he had to amputate his best friend's arm, knowing he would die without the procedure.

Attention to detail, with good dialect coaching to catch the Southern accent incredibly well.

Why this movie was swept under the rug by the Hollywood promoters I can only imagine. I have strong suspicions. Which makes it all the more appealing to me. I have given a dozen DVD copies out for presents.

Completely overlooked movie. Rent or buy it and give it your full attention for a couple of hours, then judge.",Positive "This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!

We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?

This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.

And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.

Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.

3/10 for the fine editing.",Negative "Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!

A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)

Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right.",Negative "Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly ""tutti-fruttis."" Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico ""Ratso"" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery ""Everybody's Talking'""; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.",Positive "I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.

The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.

While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.

It was a complete waste of my time.",Negative "Wow, here it finally is; the action ""movie"" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly ""Matrix"" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.",Negative "The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.

The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says ""Ah, you all look the same to me."" I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.

Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.

The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.

In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil.",Negative "A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film!

And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?

Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!

If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?",Negative "This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the ""American"" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this ""sexy beast,"" if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.",Negative "I had seen this movie long time back, but found it amazing and to this day it has never stopped amazing me.

A wonderful movie that describes the account of a group of Australian commandos who tried to sink some Japanese ships at the Singapore harbor during the height of WW2.

These commandos are caught in plain-clothes and they are considered to be spies by the Japanese captors. But something happens that hasn't been explored much in any Hollywood WW2 movie that I have seen.

A close and friendly bonding develops between the captors and the captives. They begin to respect each other, while the captain of the captured Australian soldiers become the best of friends with a senior Japanese prison guard. This is the most wonderful part of the whole movie and it really tugs your heart.

Soon, one day as the two friends are conversing, the Aussie captain learns that some other captives are going to be tried and executed for the sinking of the Jap ships in the Singapore harbor.

He mentions that it was his team and not some other's that had sunk the ships to his Japanese friend, and upon hearing this the Japanese guard tells him to keep quiet as it might lead to his whole group getting executed. But the captain remains adamant on confessing this to the Japanese authorities.

Finally, the Japanese authorities sentence them to death in the most respectful way that is according to their rules. This is the Highest Honor accorded to the captured warriors in Japan.

This is the most awesome part of the film where the Aussie soldiers are awaiting their imminent death and the tense indecision of the friendly Japanese guard who is still not ready to believe that why did his Aussie friend confess being guilty.

I won't give away the ending here. But it is more poignant than one can even imagine and can easily move one to tears.

All in all, an excellent underrated movie that possibly didn't get the recognition that it deserved internationally. Get one copy today and be mesmerized.",Positive "First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.

First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.

Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!

Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!

Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!",Negative "I always enjoyed watching this when it came on television during prime-time every year in the 60's. It's a typical Hollywood history epic, dramatized, stylized and full of inaccuracies but so what, it's an entertaining movie and a good looking film. Cecil B. DeMille at the end of his life is the executive producer of this remake of his 1938 film. His son-in-law actor Anthony Quinn who had the supporting role of Beluche in the '38 film is the director in his directorial debut and swan song as he had never directed a film before and never would again. DeMille assembled a crew who had recently worked on his 10 Commandments to help Quinn pull it off including longtime DeMille associate producer/actor Henry Wilcoxon overseeing the project. Also from the 10 Commandments are screenwriter Jesse Lasky, cinematographer Loyalk Griggs, assistant director Francisco Day, 2nd unit director Arthur Rosson, art directors Walter Tyler and Hal Pereira, set directors Sam Comer and Ray Moyer, costume designers Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Lester who as a costume design team received The Buccaneer's only Oscar nomination. A great cast here from team DeMille headed up by Yul Brynner as pirate Jean Lafitte and Charleton Heston as future President General Andrew Jackson. Also in the cast are Charles Boyer, E.G. Marshall, Lorne Greene, Claire Bloom and Inger Stevens. At just over two hours it drags in some spots but makes up for it with some excellent battle scenes. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.",Positive "How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.

I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.

The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material.",Negative "Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior ""The Naked City"", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.

.",Negative "I think that the idea of the plot is perfect for exploring first of all the emotional experiences of the people involved and second, as someone else wrote in a comment, the implications of this kind of relationships (incest and lesbianism) in the romanian society.

so... to begin with the second aspect... to make it short, it wasn't visible at all...

as for the first.. as i said, it had much more potential... i think that those kind of relationships carry much more tension... much more tension... and the potential tension didn't get through...

i think the soundtrack could've been more than those few songs on the background and the theme (wich was nice but not enough and not always in the right moments)... yeah... i could feel the absence of a better soundtrack..

the actors... i think that they were somewhere from 7 to 8/10... not enough sensuality in the key moments...

a total of 7/10.... mostly for the story",Positive "Caution: May contain spoilers...

I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.

As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.

Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.

A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such ""monsters."" The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.

Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.

Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.

9 out of 10 stars",Positive "This is a thinking man's silly movie. If you don't expect Star Wars and enjoy British humor this might just turn into a cult classic for you as it has for my wife and I - from casting the ""voice"" of Cary Grant and Jack Nicholson as martians to the overly simplistic populace of Big bean this is a movie that you can either sleep through or watch carefully and enjoy either way.

It's not for everyone, but if you enjoy relaxing easy humor that takes a quick mind to see the joke as it slips by you will enjoy this movie.",Positive "Full House is a great family show. However, after watching some episodes over and over again I've realized that they're incredibly boring and they seem to shelter themselves from the outside world a lot. Yes, there is a lot of comedy, but there are times when it's incredibly cheesy. It's not like I hate it, but just don't watch them over and over again because they get old quick. Probably the best season is the first.

Full House is about widower Danny Tanner(Bob Saget)and his three daughters D.J. (Candace Cameron) Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley). When Danny's wife dies the he is in need of some help. So, his best friend Joey (Dave Coulier) and the girls' Uncle Jesse (John Stamos) moves in with them. Once they live there together they find they can't live without each other.

Full House reminds you just how important family is and that you can always go home again.",Positive "I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and ""unsinkable""... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.

So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome",Positive "(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.",Positive "I loved it, having been a fan of the original series, I have always wondered what the back story would be - it didn't fail to delight me. I also love the fact that apart from Eric Stoltz I didn't recognise one person - this is refreshing, much like BSG. It has introduced me to a whole wealth of new talent - can't wait for the series to start airing. Well done to Ronald D. Moore and team - excellent job. The special effects, dialogue and acting were all spot on, and I felt emotionally tied up in the storyline. I know there are purists out there that will probably disagree with my assessment, but I felt that Caprica was far superior to most of the Sci-Fi stuff produced in the last decade.",Positive "Oh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off.",Negative "this is my first review on IMDb, i didn't really want to write one but since there are only 2 for this great movie right now, i feel compelled to add my perspective...and no, i'm not associated to the movie makers in any way (yeah yeah how often did you here that before ;-) ) FYI i'm in my late 20s

1st of all i have to admit i really like animated movies, because what you see is only limited by the imagination of the creators and they were pretty imaginative on this one. Not so much in terms of story but in achieving a very unique and imo fresh visual style. The characters look good but far from real and it works well for the movie, after all it's a fairytale-like world. But the backgrounds and the world in general is filled with awesome visuals that my jaw dropped several times while watching this. The blue, bunny-like mini-dragon steels the show and has easily some of the funniest moments of the movie, he is already an instant classic, much as Scrat from Ice Age. The story is not too surprising (a bunch of anti-heroes have to go out and slay the biggest dragon you can imagine) but who cares if the movie looks and sounds THAT good ;-) 1 thing i have to point out, imo the movie is not suited for VERY young children because it has some darker scenes in it and maybe frightening for kids under 6-8 i would say, these are only very few scenes but worth mentioning imo. Anyway i had a great time watching this and can't wait for it to hit the stores in high def to watch it over and over again just for the sheer beauty of it.

8,5 for me",Positive "Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle.",Negative "To be honest, I didn't like ""Executive Decision"" - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of crap, it looks like a masterpiece of art.

Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors would be an insult for all other actors) should attend more acting classes, the guy who build the setting hasn't even seen an aircraft from afar. It is so ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The film is full of illogicalness (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it anyway), which dropped my rating finally to the bottom.

You can have more fun in rearranging you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.",Negative "There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.

The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.

Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.",Negative "I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad.",Negative "I can give you four reasons to see this movie:

1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.

2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.

3. A surprisingly good cast.

4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts.

Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a ""Peter and the wolf""-like anecdote.

In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.

And at the end, Fernando Sariñana returns to the dark humor in the ""grand finale"" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films ""Todo el poder"", Sariñana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.

Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.

And it's a beautiful life in Mexico...",Positive "This movie seems to have a lot of people saying it is one of the most brutal of all time. After having just viewed it, I can say it does not live up to those claims.

The idea of the movie is indeed demented. But overall, the execution wasn't at all cringe worthy. Even the final scene (the eyeball thing) isn't really that nasty. I was expecting something insane, instead it was of lower quality than gore put forth on films like the ultra low budget Violent Sh!t.

Any one wanting to see an actual movie will be disappointed, since there is no story whatsoever (though surely most people know this). Gore fans will be disappointed since, contrary to belief, the blood and guts here are few and far between. Not to mention the actress playing the victim might be one of the worst in history.

Regardless of what people say, this movie isn't that shocking, it just plain all out sucks. Avoid it.",Negative "A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.

The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: ""I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin."" The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.

It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible ""depth"" to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.

I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.

Oops.",Positive "I was going to bed with my gf last night, and while she was brushing her teeth, I flipped channels until I came across this Chinese movie called the King of Masks. At first I thought it was going to be a Kung Fu movie, so I started watching it, and then it immediately captured me in, and I had to finish it.

The little girl in the movie was absolutely adorble. She was such a great actor for being so little. Maybe the fact it was in Chinese, so the English was dubbed made it harder for me to tell...but she really seemed to be in character perfectly. I felt so bad for the girl as she kept trying to please her ""boss"" but everything just turned out rotten. lol. Even when she brings him another grandson, just so he can pass on his art...it turns out that kid was kidnapped, so he gets arrested and has 5 days to live. lol...whatever she touches in an effort to be nice to her grandpa, just backfires.

In the end, he sees how much love is in her and teaches her the art of masks...which is just so heartwarming after all the mishaps in the movie.

Definitely a gem, and totally original.

Scott",Positive "Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty ""let's get this over with"" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.",Negative "Warning: Spoilers Galore!

Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.

Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.

The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.

Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.

Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.

Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.

Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.

The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.

The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.

Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.

Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.

It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'

The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.

Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).

No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'",Negative "I haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.

This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.

Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once?",Negative "This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.

As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.

Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as ""Michael J Fox"" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of ""Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?""). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.

What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.

The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same.",Positive "Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.",Negative "A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot.",Positive "What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10",Negative "The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you.",Positive "I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that…",Positive "The Good:

Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.

The Bad:

Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?

The Ugly:

Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.

Overall:

Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.",Negative "the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.

after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.

What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.

A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.

For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with ""homages"" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.

The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type ""friend"" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.

Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........

Oh well.

Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.

",Negative "David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.

To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.

Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.

The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.

While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.

He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says ""I love creepy boys,"" perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.

Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.'",Negative "I saw this movie while it was under limited release, mainly for the novelty of seeing Pierce Brosnan with a moustache, but it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I have seen all year. It starts out almost as a thriller, but steadily progresses into a hilarious piece of work full of one-liners and great comedic energy between Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear. Also, while I say this movie is a comedy, it doesn't forget it has a heart at times and can be very touching when it needs to be. When I went into the theater I didn't know what to expect much more than a moustache, but what I got was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Leaving the theater I felt very fulfilled from the film and plan to see it again in wide release. I recommend it to anyone who appreciates a good comedy with a well-written script and a big moustache.",Positive "What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.

The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.

But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing.",Positive "First of all, Riget is wonderful. Good comedy and mystery thriller at the same time. Nice combination of strange 'dogma' style of telling the story together with good music and great actors. But unfortunately there's no 'the end'. As for me it's unacceptable. I was thinking... how it will be possible to continue the story without Helmer and Drusse? ...and I have some idea. I think Lars should make RIGET III a little bit different. I'm sure that 3rd part without Helmer wouldn't be the same. So here's my suggestion. Mayble little bit stupid, maybe not. I know that Lars likes to experiment. So why not to make small experiment with Riget3? I think the only solution here is to create puppet-driven animation (like for example ""team America"" by Trey Parker) or even computer 3d animation. I know it's not the same as real actors, but in principle I believe it could work... only this way it's possible to make actors alive again. For Riget fans this shouldn't be so big difference - if the animation will be done in good way average 'watcher' will consider it normal just after first few shots of the movie. The most important thing now is the story. It's completely understandable that it's not possible to create Riget 3 with the actors nowadays. So why not to play with animation? And... look for the possibilities that it gives to you! Even marketing one! Great director finishes his trilogy after 10 years using puppet animation. Just dreams?

I hope to see Riget 3 someday... or even to see just the script. I'm curious how the story ends... and as I expect- everybody here do.

greets, slaj

ps: I'm not talking about the ""kingdom hospital"" by Stephen King ;-)",Positive "One of the more satisfying Western all'italiana, Johnny Yuma has the freshness of many WAI made during the heyday of the genre and is highly recommended for fans of the genre or offbeat, intelligent cinema.

Johnny Yuma is, in most respects, not terribly original, but this actually does not count against it. The success of a genre film depends on how well it meets the audience's expectations as well as provides surprising variations on these expected elements. Earlier, pleasing experiences are recreated but with subtle (or major) twist that provide continuing interest. The quality of the execution is also, obviously, important. A tired retread will be less successful than a sincere attempt to entertain or move the audience.

Given these criteria, Johnny Yuma succeeds. There are numerous reprises of elements from earlier films. The setting is the brutal, twisted semi-feudal twilight world of shared by many of the best ""Gothic family"" westerns made 1964-1968 such as Tempo di massacre (1966). The plot is a combination of the basic Fistful of Dollars (1964) plot and the Ringo films, a fact not surprising as screenwriter Fendiando di Leo was involved in both. Di Leo was one of the best screenwriters in the popular cinema coming out of Cinecitta in the 1960s-70s and his work helped provide much of the thematic continuities and coherency to the genre (Along with a couple of other personalities in a few distinct circles of actors, directors, and screenwriters). In the FOD plot, the protagonist arrives in town, stirs up a tense situation, then undergoes a near-death followed by a resurrection (in some films, like Quella sporca storia nel west (1968) it is quite literally a crucifixion). The Catholic undertone to the narrative and the symbolism is intriguing, especially given the implicit populist/explicit socialist leanings of the filmmakers and their films. The Ringo plot, developed more fully by screenwriter Ernesto Gastaldi in a series of films starring Guliano Gemma, a egoistic protagonist chooses the interest of a community over his own through the medium of a relationship with a member of that community (with a healthy dash ironic uncertainty).

The relationship between Carradine and Johnny is clearly based on that of Manco/Mortimer from a Fistful of Dollar (1965). The two scene of the exchange of the gun belts provides a clever dialog and understanding between the two. Numerous films, including Da uomo a uomo (1968) or even El Chuncho, quién sabe? (1967), use this relationship between an older and younger man (father/son, older/younger brother, Anglo adviser/adversary and peasant revolutionary) as a central dynamic to the plot.

Additionally, there is the focus on deception and misdirection, mazes and mirrors, that recur throughout the best early WAI. The canons and pueblos of Almeria become literal mazes through which protagonist and antagonist play shifting games of cat and mouse.

What distinguishes Johnny Yuma from other WAI is the quality of director Romolo Guerriri's use of visual/psychological space together arrangement with the script's intelligent mechanisms to forward the plot. Dialogue was never very important to the WAI and often absurdly unintelligible (thought there are exceptions, such as the cynical commentaries in Django (1966) or Faccia a faccia (1967).

Psychological depth of character is created almost entirely through iconic imagery, it's juxtapositions, and it's description of the overall narrative situation. See how the presence of the deadly Samantha is felt during the beating scene – watching from the roof or from the background of the action. Or how Johnny strips Samantha and Pedro of their security and confidence in their power through his stealthy invasions of their ranch, hotel, even bedroom (this, again, is a theme from FOD). Finally, note how there is a focus on the search for information. Like many elements, this is borrowed from FOD which was ultimately based on the hard-boiled mystery novel Red Harvest. It is through incidental contacts, wanted posters, overheard conversations, glances out of windows, watches left in the dust, or mistaken identities and movements through the ripples created by the actions of Pedro and Samantha within this surreal and absurd reality that the narrative tacks forward to it's conclusion.

The movie was notable in it's time for what were perceived of as excesses in violence. Of course, these films were hardly more violent than many American westerns. What was different was the psychological intensity of the violence and the causes to which it was attributed, which is to say that it was not the violence but it's meaning that had changed. Johnny Yuma is distinct and interesting in it's use and portrayal of violence and this is another interesting aspect of the film.

What I personally find most interesting about most of this genre is the link it provides to the anonymous, nameless audiences in Italy and Spain to whom these recurrent narratives held some significance and interest. The artifact may have no intrinsic worth in and of itself – some flint debitage from a prehistoric site, a shard of cruse pottery, or a moldering piece of leather and rusted metal – but it is reference to some nameless presence, lives, that were significant simply because they existed. While Johnny Yuma has intrinsic worth, much of it's interest for me derives from this connection and mystery.

Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907

Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889

For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890",Positive "Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even ""introduced"" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.

There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like ""Nothing Ever Happens"". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.",Negative "Before he became defined as Nick Charles in the Thin Man Series, William Powell played another urbane detective named Philo Vance. The supporting cast is strong in this early talkie, and Powell's star quality is evident. Mary Astor, who eight years later would be defined by her portrayal of Brigid O'Shaughnessy, does a good job here as the featured woman who finds herself in the middle of it all.",Positive "This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.

I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.

One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film.",Negative "If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't)

There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!",Negative "To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see ""Troy"" If you liked epics in the ""Jupiter's Darling"" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.",Negative "Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.",Negative "...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's ""Deathstalker"" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.

- SPOILERS AHEAD -

Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...

The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include:

- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.

- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.

- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.

- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.

... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. ""Deathstalker"" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!",Negative "This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.

From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.

""Why is it so bad,"" you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit ""on edge,"" frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.

I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.",Negative "Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to ""see how deep the rabbit hole goes"".

Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.

The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.

Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning ""rules"" for the ""monster"". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.

However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of ""main characters"" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.

Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.

I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a ""here's what really happened"" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.

Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions.",Positive "I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.

In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.

I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.",Negative "Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out ""he's lost his gun!"" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.

If anyone else out there also saw ""Sleepy Hollow"", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In ""Sleepy Hollow"", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. ""Planet of the Apes"" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like ""Total Recall"" or ""Tango and Cash"" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other ""big"" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in ""Mars Attacks"" or ""Beetlejuice"") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.",Negative "First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's ""The French Connection"", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. ""The Manchurian Candidate"" and ""Seconds"", and with his ""French Connection 2"" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.",Negative "I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.

This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those ""festival films"" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it ""different"", therefore good.

Bad film-making is not ""different"", it's just bad film-making.",Negative "Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.",Negative "Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).

The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.

This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why ""wink"" ""wink"".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.

Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans.",Positive "The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor.",Positive "I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.

The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.

A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.

And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.

In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.

With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.

As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting.",Negative "Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.",Positive "If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned!",Negative "People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage",Negative "The plot doesn't begin to describe the film: a man is writing a film, or rather, *this* film. It's totally self referential to the point that you think it's going to fold in on itself like a black hole. The writer writes something and it happens, or something happens and he writes about it.

It's very philosophical, like ""Waking Life"" but more Zen oriented and for that matter, much better, in my opinion. At one point there are person-on-the-street interviews and then you see shots of these people being filmed, and then you discover that their responses are scripted when one keeps flubbing her lines. There is beautiful scenery and optical illusions.

I hope it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again more carefully. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 2/25/2002.",Positive "Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie ""An inconvenient truth"", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. ""Planet earth"" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.

This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.

In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful!",Positive "Who wouldn't want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has more character than most actors today. This is the kind of funny and touching movie we are all looking for as a counterbalance to all the bombastic special effects bores. Women are going to love it for all the wake-up romance advice for men, and men will love it for its spot-on father/son character study--one great little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a true indie find. Obviously this is a labor of love for Paul Reiser who understands what it's like to be both a father and a son, as well as to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The most fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor really enjoying Peter Falk's special craft. Really delightful. Let's hope this film makes it into theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with Paul Reiser and folks.",Positive "I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.",Negative "This movie was absolutely wonderful. The pre-partition time and culture has been recreated beautifully. Urmila has given yet another brilliant performance. What I truly admire about this movie is that it doesn't resort to Pakistan-bashing that is running rampant in movies like Gadar and LOC. With the partition as a backdrop, the movie does not divert to political issues or focus on violence or what is right and wrong. The movie always centers around the tragic story of Urmila's life. Her fragile relationship with Manoj Bajpai has been depicted excellently. The movie actually shows how the people, both Hindus and Muslims, have suffered from this partition. The theme that there is only one religion is truly prevalent in this film.",Positive "The first few minutes of ""The Bodyguard"" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in ""Pulp Fiction""), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why ""The Bodyguard"" is an unbearable movie to watch:

1) You don't know what's going on.

2) There are barely any fights.

3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.

Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give ""The Bodyguard"" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.",Negative "Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.",Negative "believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10",Negative "I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....

Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?

Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.

One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life.

Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating.

Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.",Negative "Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....",Positive "It's hard for me to assign the ""fair"" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliché's. As ""entertainment,"" the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to ""entertain."" It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more ""watchable"" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated ""The Victors,"" an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times.",Positive "SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I had just watched the extended version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Though I did like the extended version, I wish they would have left the original version on the DVD.

The Portabello Road could have been cut down to the orginal length. It was too long and dragged the movie along. Though the dancing is great, would have been much better left on the DVD as a Deleted Scene.

All in all this is a great movie. My 5 year old liked it. And it is wonderful that movies that I enjoyed as a child are being passed on to a new generation. This and Mary Poppins are added to my collection.

Just as I had remembered!

*** out of ****

",Positive "Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing.",Positive "Now this is what a family movie should be! There are few films of recent years that have been targeted at families or children that really are worthy of their viewing public; but this IS one of them. My whole family came away from the film, awed, entertained, dazzled, and happy. We're still quoting little anecdotes from it here and there. The children LOVED it and so did we (hubbie and I are 36 and 32, respectively)!

Apart from its beautiful and striking animation, the characters (small as they may be, and imaginary as they are) are very well developed. There isn't one of them that you cannot empathize with. The personalities bringing these little creatures to life are well casted voice talents, combined with the skill and artistry of some of Disney's best animators. This is a film worthy of Walt Disney, himself. I think Mr. Disney would heartily approve of this new film... Flick, Dot and their fellow band of tiny heroes may become as popular as Mickey and Minnie in our time.

This is one the family leaves the theatre wanting to see again.. and buy to own on video or DVD. I'm eager to see it again.. to pick up what I might have missed the first time. (Never have I seen my children so quickly and vividly identify with and embrace characters before... my daughter is still talking about little ""Dot"".)

This film is funny, heartwarming, clever and great fun for the whole family!",Positive "Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.

Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.

Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane?

I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.

But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality ""quickie""). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears ""washed out"", with compromised contrast.

Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.

The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.

The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together.",Positive "First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.

Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)

What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is ""like the wind."" Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas.",Negative "This was a watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance.",Negative "This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a ""horror"" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.",Negative "As serials go ""Zorro's Fighting Legion"" is one of the best action serials of the 1930s. Made in a period when the studios could still field a large cast, this one has wall to wall action throughout its 12 chapters.

In 1824 the President of the newly formed Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez (Carleton Young) is trying to put his new country on a solid financial footing. To that end, he has arranged to have rich gold shipments forwarded to the capitol from the local San Mendolita mine.

Members of the local council plot to steal the shipments on behalf of Don-del-Oro a gold armored god, who with the aid of the local Yaqui tribe, hopes to install himself as the ruler of Mexico. Opposing him is Don Francisco (Guy D'Ennery) who forms a legion of locals to aid Juarez. When Don Franciso is murdered by Don-del-Oro's men, a stranger, the fopish Don Diego (Reed Hadley) arrives in town. Diego aka Zorro takes over the legion with the help of his friends Ramon (William Corson) and Juan (Budd Buster). The token heroine of the piece is Ramon's sister Volita (Sheila D'Arcy).

Both Diego and Ramon hold seats on the local ruling Counsil. It soon becomes apparent that some of the other members of the Council are in league with Don-del-Oro. First there is the Chairman of the Council (Leander de Cordova), the head of the militia Manuel (John Merton), Chief Justice Pablo (C. Montague Shaw) and Gonzolez (Edmund Cobb). Zorro suspects that one of these men is Don-del-Oro, but which one?

What follows are several hair raising escapes by Zorro and his confederates from the followers of Don-del-Oro. We have the ever present collapsing rope bridge, the deep chasm between two cliffs over which only Zorro can jump to safety, and the usual assortment of explosions, fires and coaches and wagons crashing or going over the cliff. Hats off here to Republic's fine team of stunt men lead by the legendary Yakima Canutt and the Yrigoyens, Bill and Joe. Canutt performs his signature stunt jumping on a team of runaway horses and then falling beneath the coach which he repeated in other films including John Ford's ""Stagecoach"" the same year.

Anyway, Zorro finally unmasks the false god Don-del-Oro and restores peace to the valley before riding off into the sunset in Chapter 12.

Others in the cast include Jim Pierce, Curley Dresden and Charlie King as Don-del-Oro's hence men and if you look closely you may spot bits by future serial star and Lone Ranger Clayton Moore and stuntman Canutt in bits. ""Big"" Jim Pierce by the way, may be best remembered for playing Tarzan in 1927's ""Tarzan and the Golden Liom"" (1927) and for his marriage to Joan Burroughs the daughter of Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Thoroughly enjoyable.",Positive "So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).

There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the ""southern"" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word ""ya'll."" This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that.",Negative "Have you heard the story about the reluctant heroes who were hired by a King to slay a dragon? Oh, you have? Was it set in a world entirely composed of small islands floating above clouds, and did the heroes have to make dangerous leaps from one island to the next on their journey? Did water flow upwards and remnants of great cities levitate on the horizon? I didn't think so.

I stumbled onto this movie by accident and I'm really glad that I did! It's one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. Much like the Pixar movies, it's a piece of computer animated art that could only be possible in today's world. The animators have invested thought into almost everything that appears on the screen, and this attention to detail is staggering (the scene where the mushrooms in the foreground belch green smoke whilst the characters walk obliviously in the background is one of my favourites). The monsters are also fully realised and wonderful to watch in action.

Although the plot may not be entirely unique, the movie has enough charm to make sure you keep watching. Our protagonists are likable and interesting, ensuring the audience is behind their almost impossible quest to reach the end of the world and destroy the dragon which might otherwise devour everything in its path. Of course, Hector is the character most will fall in love with. A small blue creature with a crazy grin and a tendency to speak a mixture of nonsense and English, Hector provides comedy relief in a way Jar Jar Binks could only dream of.

In summary, I'd recommend watching The Dragon Hunters if you get the opportunity. Watch it for the incredible animation, the breath-taking battle scenes and for a glimpse into a world that's unlike anything else you've seen on a cinema or television screen. At the very least, it's a fun way to spend an hour and a half - no matter if you're nine or twenty-nine (which, in fact, I am)!",Positive "If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.

The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a ""period piece"" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from ""looking too 1980s"", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive ""Eve""-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named ""Colin"" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.

Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet ""fop like"" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of ""named extra"" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.

The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.

The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.

In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book (""...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s..."") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.

You really can't blame it's ""too 1980s"" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film ""feels very 1980s""). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.

Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.",Negative "This is the first Tom Hanks movie I have gotten the privilege of seeing in the theater, although he is my favorite. When I heard he was going to play a hit-man, I was a little stunned thinking ""can Mr. Hanks pull this one off""? And he did in high fashion. This 1930's depression era film is a about loyalty, redemption, and one path that you don't want your children stumbling down. Tom Hanks leads a stellar cast as Michael Sullivan. Being the family man, and the secret life of the contract killer for the Oscar nominated Paul Newman. This movie Tom Hanks relies more on reaction and gaze rather than dialogue, which he delivers a knockout performance.

On one night of one of his jobs, Michael's son Michael Jr., played by newcomer Tyler Hoechlin, witnesses the hit. And Michael Sr.'s partner in crime, fellow stage actor Daniel Craig can't have that information out. So he wacks out the son and wife of Michael Sr., except Michael Jr. So the two head for Chicago to get Conner Rooney(son of Paul Newman's Mr. Rooney).

The drama and intense plot really thickens from their as father trys to set things right, even though son is along for the ride. While on this deadly journey, someone has hired a hit for Michael Sr. The assassin would be the photographer of the deceased Harlen Maguire, played by a stain-teethed Jude Law.

The movie will have you feeling the old days. And with Thomas Newman's beautiful and haunting Oscar nominated score to go along with it, you can't help but appreciate this film from Oscar winning director Sam Mendes. So sit back, and enjoy the wild ride.",Positive "I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.",Negative "A comedy of epically funny proportions from the guys that brought you South Park, and most of the guys from Orgazmo. This vulgur, obscence movie has utterly disgusting, eggotistical, and satirical content. It portrays incredibly cruel treatment of humans and animals. I LOVE IT!!!!! This is some funny stuff. Really funny. Two loser friends create a game in thier driveway, which explodes into a national sensation. Corruption and greed and blackmail turn the sport sour, and its up ta Coop ta fix it. And along the way, you will laugh. Alot. That's all there is. Enjoy!!!!",Positive "Though the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century ""Decameron"" story collection.

Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.

Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.

Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions.",Negative "When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the ""Happy Cat"" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's ""all the rage abroad""; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall.",Positive "I watched both Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy on DVD before seeing this in the theater. I'd been waiting for this since before they started filming. I wasn't disappointed.

Minor spoilers below-

Overall it was good, but it also lacked the continuity of the first two. Identity and Supremacy both flowed gracefully between adrenaline rush action to introspective drama. This movie felt choppy at times. The plot-building down-times were slightly too drawn out. That caused the following action to feel too frenetic.

Camera: Speaking of frenetic, the trademark Greengrass shaky cam was present and very annoying to me. I know its has been talked/whined about to nausea on the message board, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. All the martial arts training the actors went through was totally wasted. The ridiculous camera cuts and wiggling camera ruined most of the fighting in the movie. It is a cheap, student director trick to make the film feel unsettled. I'd expect those techniques to be used in some horror flick made for high school kids, but not in this classy, adult, action series. Too much extreme close-up also. Do some framing. Get some interesting shots. Constant close-up feels like lazy directing to me.

Story: The story was VERY confusing at first. They thrust new names and faces upon you from the get go. Gave me the feeling that you get when you come into a movie late and know you've missed some crucial information. Felt rushed or compressed for time reasons. After you catch up however the story is quite good. It's enjoyable following leads along with Bourne. HOWEVER, I did NOT care for the whole last scene of Supremacy (Landy/Bourne on the phone) being in the middle of Ultimatum thing. It basically makes the movie a half-prequel. I thought that was awkward.

Cast/Characters: The star of the movie is the action. Obviously there are only two originals left. Bourne and Nicky Parsons. Them teaming up was kind of odd to me. I think they just wanted to give Bourne someone to protect to and confide in. Unless I completely missed something, they never even tell you why they teamed up. The other assassins in the movie were pretty quiet. This felt like Gilroy/Greengrass/whoever wanting to not leave open ends. Understandable but disappointing. Seriously, Damon with Clive Owen in Identity and Marton Csokas in Supremacy.. Those scenes were phenomenal. These assassins are as uninteresting as Castel (the first fella Bourne fights in Identity). The cast in general has degraded as the the series went on. Clive Owen was practically an afterthought. That's a measure of strength for that first cast. The second, they basically trade Chris Cooper for Joan Allen.... Not exactly equal. This one trades Brian Cox and Franka Potente for 3 actors to be named later. Nothing against David Strathairn, Scott Glenn, or Albert Finney, but they're not the first names that come to mind for this kind of series. Aside from a couple pauses that seemed to long, the acting was right on.

As a whole, it was successful. Felt like they wanted to get the series over with though. If they would have trimmed or rearranged the slower parts, eliminated Scott Glenn's part entirely, zoomed out, and taken the camera away from the seizure victim, it would have been perfect.

ENDING SPOILER

I don't see why they leave Bourne alive at the end. It was my understanding this was the conclusion. They clearly made reference to the very beginning of the series with his silhouette floating motionless. I thought that was going to be it. A full circle type of ending. I did like Nicky reacting to the news report though.

SPOILER SPECIFICS WARNING - QUOTE FROM MOVIE BELOW -

Bourne's last line at the end ""Look at this.. Look at what they make you give."" quoting the first assassin he killed, I loved that. The final scene was great. (Except that it was Vosen {Strathairn} that shot at Bourne. Why would he do that? Just out for vengeance? If he was angry enough to murder, why not shoot Pamela Landy after she faxes his top secret file? That didn't make sense.)",Positive "Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.

- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.

- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.

- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.

- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.",Negative "The plot:Kurt Harris (Jeff Wincott), a bitter, ex-cop goes undercover in the ""Peacemakers"" after his friend is killed by their leader. While there, he discovers that the woman wants to run for mayor, and will do anything to achieve this goal, even murder.The cast is good(Jeff Wincott is a good martial artist and good actor)...Brigitte Nielsen plays a sexy antagonist together another bad guy plays Matthias Hues also him good martial artist.The direction is good(the fight scenes also).The rest is OK, with Tony Burton who plays a friend of Kurt killed from Nilsen,and Cyndi Pass plays a bad girl.From producers of another action/martial arts film(Bounty Tracker with Lorenzo Lamas)a good action film.The best film of Martial Law series.",Positive "After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated ""Comeback"" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well – SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing – as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones – Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day!

While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...",Negative "Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this ""film"" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as clichéd and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)

I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the ""teens"" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.

Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time.",Negative "One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with ""The Long Walk Home"" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about ""Homer and Eddie"" or ""Hollywood Squares,"" think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!)",Positive "This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen.

If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.

Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.

I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is ""Swim Fan"" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.

This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.

Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...",Positive "This is a great movie! Most of us have seen Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory is summarized by telling about a butterfly's wings, causing a tornado on the other side of the planet. Well, Bug is all about that (or at least something, don't worry this is no spoiler) I'm definitely not a religious type and don't believe in pre-destined stuff, fate, etc, but this movie surely makes you wonder if coincidence really exists...

further more, the acting and camera are excellent too, another prove that it's still possible to make a good movie without a zillion bucks",Positive "On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.

However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.

There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.",Negative "Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as ""Blockbuster Video"" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, ""what is this kind of crap?"" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this ""film"". All I have to say to the director is ""do you own a freakin' tripod?"" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and ""act"" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, ""Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?""",Negative "I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic ""Private Lessons"" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.

""Private Lessons II"" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.

The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.",Negative "So terrific, so good. I have never seen a man be more funny than Eddie Murphy. In this stand-up-comedy you will see a lot of imitations more done by anyone!

If you have seen Raw (1987) you will have to see Delirious. It's so funny! It's so professional!",Positive "This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy ""DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY"". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a ""US"" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.",Negative "Before I watched this film I read a review here stating that this film could possibly be one of the best films ever!? ha ha Scene by scene the tension grows alright... from the annoying characters in this movie. From the little girl talking gibberish and trying to drown the little boy, to the killer just running about without any notice (and who was the guy at the beach talking to the little boy!?)..things just seem to happen and then go unanswered in this film. As I watched it seemed like the film was going in one direction, then just doesn't go anywhere, but into a new direction...and on and on...

The acting is great, but the writing is horrible. Each character, in each scene, says or does something so unbelievable, unrealistic and the reactions of the fellow cast/extras are simply strange. There are no resolutions to the problems developed throughout the film, making it confusing and ultimately a big waste of time.",Negative "You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.",Positive "Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...",Negative "I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little ""too"" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)",Positive "This first part of the BRD Trilogy has more passion and plot density than Lola, but less of the magic of Veronica Voss. The political musings have point to them: we see the shortages after the war, how the blackmarketers were able to control so much of the day-to-day life (delicious moment when Fassbinder, playing a grifter, tries to sell a complete set of Kleist to Schygulla, who remarks that burning books don't provide much warmth: she really wants firewood).

There's some clumsiness in the first hour. The scene in Maria's room with the black soldier, interrupted by Hermann's appearance should go quicker. The train scene when Maria meets Karl Oswald falls flat when she insults the GI--I cringed, it was so bad. But as the story develops and the years go by, I was drawn more and more into this glossy, cold world.",Positive "I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- ""I want my Daddy"", SETH- ""So do I"". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.",Negative "Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like ""High Noon"" ""From Here to Eternity"" and this one?

Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?

Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.

Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?

Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.",Negative "it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.

this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.

the plot.

I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.

""Logan"" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. ""Suzanne"" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane ""artist"" character. ""the artist"" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping ""the man"" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate ""the man"" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.",Negative "This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.

The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.

I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.

JDD - 14 December 2008",Negative "I liked the initial premise to this film which is what led me to hunt it out but the problem I quickly found is that one pretty much knows what's going to happen within the first 20-30 minutes ( the doubles will come from behind the mirror and take over everybody).

There is no real twist (which is fine) , but the final reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense either (how can she be racked with uncertainty and fear for the whole film, if she's an evil id from beyond the mirror?).

Admittedly the scenes 'beyond the mirror' were chilling when they first appeared and the blonde's murder is also effectively creepy, but ultimately alas this seems to be a film in search of a story or a more engaging script, piling atmosphere upon atmosphere and over the top scary sound design for 80-90 minutes does not really cut it, in fact it gets quite dull.",Negative "Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.

In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).

Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.

What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.

In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.

All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.

On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.

The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised.",Positive "This is a good film for 99% of the duration. I feel that the ending has occluded this film from higher acclaim.

It is shot in a rather naive fashion. This is clearly done to create a more chilling feel to the film - a feeling of isolation becomes apparent very soon on due to this filming technique.

The gruesome characters are very well acted and presented especially the 'nutcase' called Joe. However, the wholesome (normal) characters are a little too pathetic for my liking - granted, they are supposed to come across as pathetic but this is done a little OTT.

The film starts slowly (and the naive camera work smacks of 'B' movie to start with) and very normally but you soon get a feel of the impending brutality that is about to occur. This is one of the most 'twisted' movies with respect to cold-hearted violence.

After the abrupt and unbelievably lazy ending I was left feeling disappointed. I would have given the film a 9 if the ending was in keeping with the rest of the film but as it is it gets only a 7 on the strength of the 'eeriness' and nail-biting scenes earlier on in the film.

Give it a watch and excuse the ending!",Positive "This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.",Negative "This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.

However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects.

'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.

There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.

I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see!",Positive "Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.

But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.

The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.

But not for more than 99¢, OK?",Negative "Major Payne was really not very good at all. Despite being funny here and there, the story was ridiculous and the acting was poor. Major Payne's voice and temperament were especially annoying. The idea was ridiculous and the things that the boys had to do in that film were even more ridiculous. I would not recommend this film to anyone.",Negative "speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.

i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his ""friends"" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.

in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a ""ok i'm outta here!"" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.

about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.

so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.

Coherence.

thanks for reading ;)",Negative "Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' ""houseboy,"" perhaps the only ""real"" human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite.",Positive "I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.

The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.

I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.",Positive "Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.",Negative "As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the ""Actor's Craft"" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.

A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play ""the part of a lifetime"" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.

Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.

This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting!",Positive "This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the ""based on a true story/historical references"" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.

The sound track was typical ""asian-style"" music, although I couldn't figure out where the ""modern"" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.

The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.

But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out ""Adrian!"" or even ""You wanna piece of me?!"".

Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) ""I'm going to have a baby."" He responds ""A child?"" I expected her to retort ""No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh.""",Negative "A bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...

A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the genre.",Negative "1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.

11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).

Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.

Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.

The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?",Positive "I rented this because I'm a bit weary of '80s NBC programming and apparently I saved myself a lot of money. I have nothing against any of the actors and for their credit they do a good job but this show is flawed from the premise.

We have a character who is unlikable. He's full of flaws, not enlightened, and a complete jerk on a good day. Yet the reason why anybody should care just isn't there. While creating an American sitcom centered around a complete bullheaded jackass is revolutionary and full of potential, it just isn't met here within this show. Most of the supporting characters aren't fully fleshed characters but rather sad punching bags that want empathy from the audience for being punching bags. As in any sitcom, they are the ones who are made the most normal for the audience to relate to, and in doing this they negate the lead character to such an extent that we see Bittinger being himself and harming people and they just stay there because....why? There is no reason. Any normal people would have simply left the abuse. Keeping them there without any real reason--even the really unbelievable one given by Joanna Cassidy in the very special 2-part abortion episode that has major problems of its own--is where the show just falls apart. To simply believe that people put up with this guy because we are told he has a heart of gold does not mesh with the reality of the situation. If anything, this isn't even dramedy. This is a badly plotted, conceived, and executed premise that had a few moments but overall met the fate it deserved. Someone had the guts to go out and make a very good idea, but the execution is so haphazard that it just looks like a weirdly scripted version of the Jerry Springer show where someone is abused by this tyrant that we're supposed to root for because we are told to. A show like this requires a deft touch that the actors here could have provided easily, but somehow aren't able to. And that's a fatal error that really killed the program.

Chalk it up to a show in its infancy. Regardless, the show is worth a watch. But it really screwed up when trying to aim for the stars, and made the whole enterprise not what it could have been.",Negative "This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.",Negative "The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending.

However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other.",Positive "The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.",Negative "Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).",Negative "This film is another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the ""first part"" and ""second part"". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't ""end"", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!",Negative "Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.",Negative "Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).

I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...

To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.",Negative "Some here have commented that this is the WORST Elvis movie ever made. Well, they are only partly right. For me, this IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE PERIOD! I have never seen anything so basely crude, and insulting, and vile, and against human nature as this film. A true embarrassment to the Motion Picture Industry, this isn't even so Bad, its good. There is no campy trashy fun to be had here like in some of Elvis' other bad movies like Clambake. This one is so rotten to sit through its painful. Pure Garbage. Native Americans should sue for their poor clichéd and stereotypical treatment here. Actually, perhaps ALL Human Beings should sue for the crime and disservice this movie does to the species as a whole 0 Stars, seriously. Grade: F",Negative "It is always satisfying when a detective wraps up a case and the criminal is brought to book. In this case the climax gives me even greater pleasure. To see the smug grin wiped off the face of Abigail Mitchell when she realises her victim has left ""deathbed testimony"" which leaves no doubt about her guilt is very satisfying.

Please understand: while I admire Ruth Gordon's performance, her character really, *really* irritates me. She is selfish and demanding. She gets her own way by putting on a simpering 'little girl' act which is embarrassing in a woman of her age. Worse, she has now set herself up as judge, jury and executioner against her dead niece's husband.

When Columbo is getting too close she tries to unnerve him by manipulating him into making an off-the-cuff speech to an audience of high-class ladies. He turns the tables perfectly by delivering a very warm and humane speech about the realities of police work.

Nothing can distract Columbo from the pursuit of justice. Abby's final appeal to his good nature is rejected because he has too much self-respect not to do his job well. Here is one situation you can't squirm out of Ms Mitchell!",Positive "I went to see this film at the cinemas and i was shocked when I got in the room. There was only me and my girlfriend! This shouted to me that this film is not very good.

Not to my surprise, the film was dire. Ben Affleck plays a guy who buys a family for Christmas. It is a very predictable narrative with him falling in love with the girl that hates him. His acting is OKish but for the comedy aspect of the film he is not very good. The plot line is poor and the comedy almost non-existent.

However, there are some good points. For example, the family is falling apart and the mother is very funny.

I hope this review stops other people wasting their money. I was very embarrassed when I came out of the room!!!",Negative "Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.

A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like ""college kids in a haunted house,"" in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.

Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.

I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.

This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the ""I know hell exists"" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like ""gosh-darnit"" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).

If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.

",Negative "...but it'll make you wonder if we had any in the first place! This movie is just as bad as any of today's horrible horror. A man goes around ogling semi-clad ladies, trying to decide which one to kill so he can give his girlfriend a new body. One scene involves a man staggering around and spurting all over the set for a full three minutes, coating everything what what must be well over ten gallons of ""blood."" The movie also attempts to create a sense that what the man is doing to his girlfriend is wrong and against nature, but the movie is so badly done it's impossible for the audience to dredge up any feeling of shock or outrage. Aimlessly dark and unimpressively sinister, this movie can't even get its own title straight-- the beginning credits say ""The Brain That Wouldn't Die,"" but the end credits list it as ""The Head That Wouldn't Die.""",Negative "The Italian' is among the great or near-great films of 1915 that are available today. The year was a turning point for the feature-length film, especially in America: Lois Weber's 'Hypocrites', Cecil B. DeMille's 'The Cheat' and, of course, D.W. Griffith's 'The Birth of a Nation' set new benchmarks for the art. Additionally, that year, Russian filmmaker Yevgeni Bauer made two of his best pictures, 'After Death' and 'Daydreams'. The French serial 'Les Vampires' also has its admirers today, although I disagree with them. The emergence of the feature-length film was led by Europe, mainly Denmark, France and Italy, but dominance of this market and, to a degree, the art shifted to across the Atlantic in 1915.

The most overriding artistic achievement of 'The Italian' is its stunning and often innovative cinematography. There are some picturesque sunsets, mobile framing, including a brief overhead angled shot of the Italian racing to buy a wedding ring and another shot of him holding onto a moving car, and, in general, there is wise use of varied camera angles and expert lighting throughout. An especially amazing shot is a close-up of the Italian enraged as he slowly approaches the camera for an extreme close-up, in reference to D.W. Griffith's 'Musketeers of Pig Alley' (1912). He's so enraged his environment even begins to shake around his anger.

Unfortunately, the cinematographer appears to be unknown. The director, although originally without credit in the film, is now known to have been Reginald Barker. Five or so of his other films made for Ince are also available today, but are rather unremarkable. 'Civilization' (1916), which he worked on, was a large production, but a deeply flawed movie. By the way, I'd guess that one or more of the various cinematographers who worked on 'Civilization' also photographed 'The Italian'.

Moreover, the entire production is very advanced for then. Venice and New York are well rendered despite the film being shot in Los Angeles (for romanticized Venice) and San Francisco (for the ethnic slums of New York). There are extensive flashbacks, although perhaps one or two too many. I especially like the clever framing of the narrative as being read in a book by a character played by the same actor, George Beban, who is also the lead in the inner, main narrative. The reading of the story is further briefly framed by the opening at the beginning and closing at the end of curtain drapes, à la the theatre, which is reflected within the inner story during the revenge climax in the child's room, with the opening and closing of window curtains. Parallel editing, in-camera dissolves and irises and such are handled expertly. Additionally, Beban and Clara Williams, as his wife, play their parts well.

On the other hand, 'The Italian' does have a few drawbacks. The film's early moments of comedy clash rather disharmoniously with the latter parts of harsh and heavy melodrama, although the environmental changes from romanticized Italy to naturalistic New York works well—mostly because it's supported by the lighting and photography. The harsh dissolution of the American dream in this film, enhanced by the stark photography, must have been poignant to the immigrant classes who comprised a disproportionately large population of the movie-going public back then. The Corrigan character should have been foreshadowed more; his brief introduction campaigning for another politician seems inadequate for his later centrality to the Italian's revenge. In addition, the filmmakers were either medically naïf or careless to not explain the lack of breastfeeding of the infant and the unwarranted faith in the healing powers of quietness for the other child. Aside from the deficiencies in plot, 'The Italian' is exceptionally well made.",Positive "Don't waste your time or money on this one. The half decent cast might fool you into thinking that this teen-thriller, whilst hardly about to break any records, might lightly entertain for 80 minutes.

It won't.

It won't make you scared, laugh, cry or even challenge your intellect. It will leave you wondering how on earth this movie ever finished production. Yes, it really is that poor.",Negative "Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.

Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leave—ever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.

Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.

If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warned—it is really, really bad.",Negative "I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, ""The book was better."" I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers.

Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.

With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.

Of course the movie is ""good,"" the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.",Negative "A youth gets a bad hair day, goes out on a hill, and falls into where he can't escape. Then, he meets MR. ATLAS, a ""mythological"" dude from 2,000 years ago as his very best friend, and an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-and-sound-alike. His Herculean strength helps the boy out of danger, and later adjusts to modern life. So what's the big deal? This is the lousiest idea for a ""family"" outing! Either way, this one shouldn't have been attempted at all, really! Our fictional character of might and brawn is nothing more than a typical stranger who appears ordinary to the rest of the universe. To add to the blasphemy is the lack of anything new or appealing, and before you know it, there is some attempted violence that doesn't qualify this as ""family"" entertainment. The scene where Atlas complains of his undershorts is gaggling, though. Just spend a nice, quiet afternoon in the park for a change.",Negative "the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing ""guess"" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.

who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.

Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.",Negative "A SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola - Italy/Canada 1977).

Every once in a while, you come across a film that really touches a nerve. This one offers a very simple premise, almost flawlessly executed in every way and incredibly moving at the same time. It's surprising Ettore Scola's ""Una giornate particulare"" is relatively unheralded, even hated by some critics. Time Out calls it 'rubbish' and Leonard Maltin, somewhat milder, 'pleasant but trifling.' I disagree, not only because this film is deeply moving, but within its simple story it shows us more insights about daily life in fascist Italy than most films I've seen. The cinematography is distinctly unflashy, even a bit bland, and the storyline straightforward, which might explain the film's relative unpopularity. Considering late '70s audiences weren't exactly spoiled with great Italian films, it's even stranger this one didn't really catch on with the critics.

The film begins with a ten-minute collage of archive footage from Hitler's visit to Italy on may 8th 1938. Set against this background, we first meet Antonietta (Loren), a lonely, love-ridden housewife with six children in a roman apartment building. One day, when her Beo escapes, she meets her neighbour Gabriele (Mastroianni), who seems to be only one in the building not attending the ceremonies. He is well-mannered, cultured and soon she is attracted to him. During the whole film, we hear the fascist rally from the radio of the concierge hollering through the courtyard. Scola playfully uses the camera to make us part of the proceedings. After the opening scene, the camera swanks across the courtyard of the modernist (hypermodern at the time) apartment block, seemingly searching for our main characters, whom we haven't met yet.

Marcello Mastrionani and Sophia Loren are unforgettable in the two leading roles, all the more astonishing since they are cast completely against type. Canadian born John Vernon plays Loren's husband, but he is only on screen in the first and last scene. I figure his voice must have been dubbed, since he's not of Italian descent and never lived there, to my knowledge, so I cannot imagine he speaks Italian. If his voice has been dubbed, I didn't notice at all. On the contrary, he's completely believable as an Italian, even more than the rest of the cast. The story is simple but extremely effective, the performances are outstanding, the ending is just perfect and the framing doesn't come off as overly pretentious but works completely. Don't miss out on this one.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10",Positive "I wonder how much this movie actually has got to do with the 1984 movie ""Bachelor Party"", starring Tom Hanks. Is this movie even an official sequel? This movie is lacking in every department and you're obviously better off not watching it.

For a comedy this movie simply isn't good or funny enough. It relies mostly on the character's their stereotypical assessments, rather then the movie actually features some good, original and funny moments.

Of course there also is very little story present and the movie nude breast than script pages. You just keep waiting for things to finally start off. There is a main plot line in it somewhere but that one is so terribly unoriginal and gets executed so poorly in the movie that it feels more as if it's something non-existent. I guess there even is a message and moral story in it somewhere but this again is so terribly unoriginal and poorly done in the movie that it simply does not work out.

It's basically a typical teenage comedy, with lots of sex jokes and nudity, only without the teenage main characters, which makes the story all the more sad and tasteless. The movie makes some really wrong jokes, that are misplaced for any type of movie.

I regret ever watching this.

3/10",Negative "102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only ""actors"" that seem ""real"" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D",Negative "This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.

The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see.",Negative "Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production.",Negative "When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well.",Positive "Apparently Hollywood is just handing out money to anyone with a camera and the ability to speak. This movie was mind numbingly bad. The casting was terrible, the acting unspeakable, and the story filled with holes. Script? who needs script? I was surprised that the movie wasn't as verbally vulgar as I thought it would be, however I got enough shots of T&A to last me a lifetime. The movie was like listening to a 19 year old street racer with ADD (who decided to buy a car instead of go to college) tell a story. Being so poorly scripted, I thought the two brothers in the film were lovers at first. The scenes at the racetrack, along with the main female actor in the film kept making me think of Herbie: Fully Loaded. This is the kind of film is what Grindhouse modeled itself after...only the writers thought they were being serious.",Negative "Kureishi hasn't exactly been blessed with movies that justify the quality of his writing. Recent adapted travesty's like 'Intimacy' have ruined great writing. But The Mother surpasses all his previous incarnations, eclipsing even My Beautiful Laundrette. A middle-aged woman overcomes widow-hood by having a very carnal relationship with the boyfriend of her emotionally-weak daughter. The fact that you believe all this is credit to the quality of the acting as it is to the finite gift of the writing. And in Daniel Craig we have a strutting, brash, gruff anti-hero who denies the audience to ever question why a young stud would contemplate bedding a sagging grandmother. Beautifully shot, the film fails only in the weak depiction of the peripheral characters, but as a study of inconceivable lust, it's a winner.",Positive "I laughed a lot while watching this. It's an amusing short with a fun musical act and a lot of wackiness. The characters are simple, but their simplicity adds to the humor stylization. The dialog is funny and often unexpected, and from the first line to the last everything just seems to flow wonderfully. There's Max, who has apparently led a horrible life. And there's Edward, who isn't sure what life he wants to lead. My favorite character was Tom, Edward's insane boss. Tom has a short role but a memorable one. Highly recommended for anyone who likes silly humor. And you can find it online now, which is a bonus! I am a fan of all of Jason's cartoons and can't wait to see what he comes out with next.",Positive "I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.

""Sur mes lèvres"" or ""Read my Lips"" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...

Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).

Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.

All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try.",Positive "1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.",Negative "This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled ""Huggies"" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it",Negative "When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!",Negative """Private Practice"" is being spun off the fairly successful and well written ""Grey's Anatomy"". The cast is fabulous. The premise might even work. But the writing is just terrible.

The pre-pilot disguised as a Grey's Anatomy episode should have been my first warning. The plot was just blah. I thought maybe it was a fluke. So I set the DVR to tape the pilot and all other episodes.

As I was watching the pilot, I just kept wondering how a show with such a cast of fine actors could put together a boring pilot. The pilot is supposed to suck people in and keep them coming back for more. There's supposed to be excitement, flash, great writing, intriguing storyline with a cliffhanger that needs to be answered throughout the rest of the season. Amazingly, this show had none of that.

Thinking it was a fluke, I just watched the second episode hoping for the best. And although marginally better, it doesn't come close to what it needs to be interesting can't miss TV.

I just scrubbed this show from my list of shows to watch. Not worth the effort IMO, and I would be very surprised if this show even makes it through mid season. Pass this one up folks.",Negative "For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.",Positive "It is no surprise that writer/director Michael Powell considered ""A Matter of Life and Death,"" his and Emeric Pressburger's spellbinding fantasy from 1946 to be his favourite of their films together. Released during the aftermath of World War 2, this colourful romantic adventure would have provided just the tonic for a traumatised, recovering nation in need of a good uplift.

Following a string of other patriotic war films, 'The Archers' made this one their quirkiest, skittish and most patriotic of the lot. Quintessentially British for upholding British heritage (Shakespeare, beer, fair play, good manners), it is also visibly Americanised in its baroque compositions, technical inventiveness and a fine multi-ethnic cast.

Oddly echoing another 1946 classic, ""It's a Wonderful Life,"" AMOLAD opens on a grand firmament, with one of those jolly voice-overs preaching about the earth and the heavens, and what a big, wonderful world we live in.

It then cuts to the inside of a British cockpit, badly hit, up in flames and with the co-pilot already dead. It sounds misconceived, but the connection is soon made lucid with the events that follow.

Clocking in at nearly 5 minutes, the rapid-fire exchange between British pilot Peter (David Niven) and American radio contact June (Kim Hunter) is breathtaking in its intimacy. Resigned to dying, Peter nevertheless exhausts plenty of vigour, charm and outpouring confessions, and his warm affiliation with June closes with a mutual exchange of 'I love you.'

Keeping with the magic of the moment, Peter, by oversight of his Conductor 71 whose job it was to transport him to the 'Other World,' escapes death and finds himself stranded on a beach. He later encounters June riding a bicycle, and instantly matches the body with the voice.

But realising their error, the high court want Peter sent back, and order the French Conductor (Maurice Goring) down to earth to retrieve him. But Peter is adamant to live because of June and the Conductor's mistake, and wilfully guards his corner.

Peter's fate ultimately lies with the heavenly court and American prosecutor (Raymond Massey), whose jury consists of several deceased war heroes and posh British delegates. The surreal trial, which dissolves from b/w back into rich Technicolor, once the verdict is announced, may well be a dream, but the final shot in the hospital validates the predictable outcome.

The abstract, frame filling ""stairway to heaven"" (the American title of the film) is used twice: the first time in b/w, when it elevates Peter and his enigmatic French guardian upwards, crossing giant statues of Peter's potential attorneys for the trial, including Abraham Lincoln and Plato. The second time, the softly lit colour stairway provides the setting for what is an iconic image in cinema - Peter and June frozen side-by-side, their marvelled eyes fixed forward in the frame, their fate sealed.

The unlikely affection shared between Peter and June never turns mushy or verbose; it's treated with nobility and the perception that the couple are already suitable enough to be married and simply need to convince people of their love, so it can keep them together.

The French Conductor, who can freeze time and people's bodies, obtrudes many of their key moments together, lecturing Peter about history and among his mischievous tricks, pinching Peter's 'Top 100 Game Tricks' book and his coffee cup.

As visually inspired as other Powell/Pressburger collaborations, this was the first time they combined colour with b/w – the latter having a cheerful quality when used for the heaven scenes, and both are equally captivating.

The outstanding script more than matches the imaginative set design, with dialogue that sounds so immediate that is doesn't feel like it was written or performed for the screen. Amusing and witty, Powell/Pressburger's writing deserves equal acclamation with their forte for colour and composition.

Made in 1946, ""A Matter of Life and Death"" is one of those films that defies it age, looking fresh and inventive, even in this age where CGI would vamp up its artificial effects, probably stripping them of their emotional wonder.

Other jarring changes would include the need for reduced average seconds for cutting and the inevitable plea to shorten dialogue so it can preserve the low attention spans of most audiences. Powell weaves a spell that subconsciously absorbs the viewer from the first frame, giving him freedom to experiment with images without betraying the logical development of Peter's predicament.",Positive "This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well.

The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.

Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.",Negative "Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making ""romantic comedies"" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable ""romantic comedy"" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say ""suspend your disbelief"", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.

I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.",Negative "I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.

An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.

Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.

Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the ""hollow center of the earth"" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.

The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed.",Positive "Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled ""A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH"" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged ""global warming"" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James ""The Amazing"" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole ""global warming"" scam.",Negative "In my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by this.",Negative "In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one.",Positive "Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:

1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.

The only thing I liked about this film is the song ""'Bright Eyes"".

If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.

Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...",Negative "Vincente Minnelli directed some of the most celebrated entertainments in cinema history... He was among the first Hollywood directors to show that a profound love of color, motion and music might produce intelligent entertainment...

'American in Paris' is the story of an ex-GI who remains in France after the war to study and paint... He falls in love with a charming gamine Lise Bourvier... Their romantic love affair sparkles as brightly as the City of Lights itself... The whole movie brings a touch of French elegance where technique, artistic style and music all come together in perfect synchronism...

The first musical sequence introduces the exciting personality of Leslie Caron in her screen debut... She is like a diamond, a touch of class... George Guetary describes his fiancée ambiguous grace in a montage of different dance styles, sweet and shy, vivacious and modern, graceful and awesome... The number leads to an unpretentious bistro, where Kelly and his very good friends in Paris share a gentle parody of Viennese waltzes... Later Kelly celebrates a popular tap dancing with a crowd of enthusiastic children singing with him 'I Got Rhythm,' and at the massive jazz nightclub Kelly spots the girl of his dreams... He is instantly hit by her sparkling sapphire blue eyes, and only one clear thing is in his mind, to pull Lize onto the dance floor and sing to her: ""It's very clear, Our love is here to stay.""

To the joyful 'Tra-La-La,' Kelly provides humor, wit and talent all around Oscar Levant's room ,and even on the top of his brown piano...

When he meets his pretty Cinderella along the Seine river, Kelly is swept away by his happy meeting with Caron... He expresses all his emotions with 'Our Love Is Here to Stay.' The piece had a definite nighttime feel as the two lovers were bathed in soft, blue smoky light... They start an enchanting dance-duet juxtaposing differing elements... Caron dances with her head on his shoulder, then tries to run away in a fluid way... They move backward, away from each other, then pause to rush toward each other, for a little kiss, and a warm hug...

The film's weakest numbers were those that bear little relation to the story... In one, Georges Guetary performs an entertaining stage show with showgirls in giant ornaments floating down to the stage... In another, Oscar Levant imagines himself conducting a concert, and playing not only a piano recital, but the other instruments as well... He even applauds to himself as members of the audience...

The extravagant climactic super ballet of the film is quite an adventure, a breakthrough in taste, direction and design... It is a blaze of love, fury and vividness... It is Kelly's major fantasy of his lost love and of his feeling about Paris as viewed through the huge backdrops of some of France's most Impressionist painters...

The number starts at the Beaux Arts Ball after Kelly finds himself separated from Lise, and begins a sketch with a black crayon... It gathers the important parts of the film's story through a constantly changing locations, all in the style of the painters who have influenced Jerry... The tour, richly attractive and superbly atmospheric, includes the Place De la Concorde Fountain, the Madeleine flower market, the Place De l'Opéra, to his Rendez-Vous at Montmartre, with the cancan dancers in a representation of Lautrec's Moulin Rouge...

Kelly seems to defy the boundaries of his physical self... Caron seems to dominate her space and sweeps you away to another time and place...

Nina Foch appeared very attractive and elegant in her one-shouldered white gown... In one of the film's most famous lines, Kelly asks her: 'That's quite a dress you almost have on. What holds it up?"" Nina, cleverly replies, ""modesty!""

'An American in Paris' garnered six Oscars, including an honorary award to Gene Kelly... The film gave us a wealth of memories to take home...",Positive "Like other people who commented on ""Fräulein Doktor"" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.

To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are ""All Quiet On The Western Front"", ""Paths Of Glory"", ""Gallipoli"" and the post-war ""La vie et rien d'autre""). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.

I only wish I had taped the film.",Positive "This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.

The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.

The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.

The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though.

If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.",Negative "I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.

Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...

To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.

That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.",Negative "People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like ""House 3"", ""Shocker"" and ""Ghost in the Machine"". Anyway, ""The First Power"" (a.k.a ""Pentagram"") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. ""The First Power"" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him ""Buddy-Boy"" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line ""I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess"". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of ""La Bamba"" and ""Stand And Deliver"" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson (""Forrest Gump""), Carmen Argenziano (""When a Stranger Calls"") and B-movie horror legend David Gale (""Re-Animator"") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.",Negative "This film is pure Elvira and shows her at her breast... I mean best! The story (co-written by Cassandra Peterson, Elvira's alter ego) is inspiring and captivating and is brought to life by Elvira's wit and charm. The viewer gets an opportunity to see Elvira in a whole new light as she struggles with the prejudices of the people of Fallwell, Massachusetts (where she has travelled from Los Angeles in order to attend the reading of her Great Aunt Morganna's will) and at the same time tries to help the long-suffering teenagers who have been deprived of fun by the matriarchal Chastity Pariah and the rest of the town council. She also has to deal with her attraction to Bob Redding, the owner of the local cinema, and another woman (Patty) who has her eye on Bob as well but is not nearly as deserving of his love as Elvira. And, later in the movie, she also faces the complications of being descended from ''a major metaphysical celebrity'' and the charges of witchcraft brought against her which mean that she will be burnt at the stake. Elvira manages to be both sexy and vulnerable, streetwise and naive in this film, while cracking risque jokes and delivering off-beat lines with double meanings.

This movie is inspiring because it gives out the message of never giving up on yourself and always trying to follow your dreams. In the end Elvira's dreams finally come true, which is the best thing that could happen to this wonderfully unique and determined woman.

I've seen this movie countless times and I never ever get tired of it! There are no unnecessary scenes and I found myself captivated throughout the whole movie. A review will not do justice to the actual movie, so I can just tell you to PLEASE watch it because it is one of the best movies ever made! Meanwhile, I wish you ''unpleasant dreams!''",Positive This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!,Negative "I saw this movie on TV late one night years ago, but it was a disturbing experience that has stayed with me to this day.

The premise may seem a bit unoriginal - due to an earthquake, a hidden underground store of a toxic nerve agent in the hills above a small town is breached, and a microscopic amount of the substance finds its way into their food supply. The inhabitants of the town begin to lose their ability to exercise restraint over every whim and base desire that floats through all of our minds from time to time, and that normally we know we simply must not act upon.

The pace of the movie is slow, but for me that only added to the creeping unease as the townspeople's behaviour slowly starts to unravel. There are several surreal and very unsettling scenes that have remained etched in my memory all this time.

It raises interesting questions about what we could all be capable of if we gave in to our most feral instincts. Did I enjoy it? I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the right word. Did it make me think? Definitely. I'm still thinking about it. Scary stuff.",Positive "Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, ""The King of Comedy"". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as ""Dallas Doll"" (1994) or ""Dinner Rush"" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

""Without You I'm Nothing"" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – ""Hedwig and the Angry Inch"", for instance, would look a lot different if ""Without You I'm Nothing"" didn't exist.",Positive "Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....

The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a ""Roosevelt Democrat"", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.

Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I.

The only thing that kept me from giving this a ""1"" was the nice scenery, human and plant.",Negative "One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.

",Positive "This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.

Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.

At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.

In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.

Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.

Unfortunately, that world only exists on film.

""Ah, but what if...?"" - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best.",Positive "The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer!",Positive "I have never seen such a movie before. I was on the edge of my seat and constantly laughing throughout the entire movie. I never thought such horrible acting existed it was all just too funny. The story behind the movie is decent but the movies scenes fail to portray them. I have never seen such a stupid movie in my life which is why it I think its worth watching. I give this movie 10 out of 10 for being the most pathetic movie ever created, this movie seems like it was solely created to become trash. I mean the scenes seem so fake and the actors act like ""the camera is in front of them"". You will get a kick just watching how lame this movie is, me and my friend could not stop making jokes during the movie, the darthvader guy who tries to get the girl got ran over not once but twice and the second time he got ran over it sounded like he said sh!# although he doesn't speak English lol. If you watch this movie you will think to yourself that all those other movies you didn't like you took for granted they are way better than this. This movie should be seen out of curiosity as well as what kind of movie DEFINES lame. The evil serpent encountered the girl so many times it was ridiculous, the evil serpent just roared and roared and let her get away every time. The evil serpent had so many chances it was like god was trying to say hurry up and eat the girl how many miracles do you want. The transition between scenes leaves you wondering did I miss something? So many plot holes from scene to scene. I was laughing like crazy when they decided to ""Escape To Mexico"" to get away from the serpent. Hmmmm hopping the border will save you from a serpent from Korea? interesting... very interesting.... I guess hopping the border solves all problems. Another scene that completely stupified me.. they met for the first time and had a romantic scene at the beach they kissed and didn't even know each other... the scene was so clichéd and the was no substance at least in other movies it might seem logical afterwhile but i mean they JUST MET even though they are reincarnations there feelings were like they instantly loved each other instead of it rather developing. Anyways this movie is worth watching for the sake of opening your eyes and seeing the light. Bad Hollywood movies will seem like heaven when compared to this. In the end its worth watching you wont get bored you will be occupied criticizing every moment, every scene in your head.",Positive "Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.

Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.

The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.",Negative "It's a testament to Gosha's incredible film-making prowess that he was able to complete both Hitokiri and his stunning masterpiece, Goyokin, in the same year, 1969. And it's a testament to how criminally underrated he remains for the general public (compared to media darlings like the great Akira Kurosawa), that both Hitokiri and Goyokin have received less than 500 votes between the two of them.

Shintaro Katsu is Okada Izo: mad dog killer, loyal to the Tosha clan and their boss Takechi, played by another genre stalwart, Tatsuya Nakadai. The Tosha clan was part of a larger alliance that supported the Emperor against the flailing Shogunate. The historical backdrop is fairly accurate - with Japan's increasing political turmoil between imperialists and the Tokugawa and the pressure by the West to end a 300 year social and political seclusion. It helps a lot to know a thing or two about Japanese history and what eventually led to the Meiji Restoration and the abolition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but it's not essential by any means. The movie was made primarily for a Japanese audience so certain things are taken for granted but it flows very well for the uninitiated as well.

As one would expect from a Hideo Gosha film in his golden years (the late 60's) the visual palette is breathtaking, the use of external and internal symbolism hiding behind pictorial beauty. Style however is never decorative for Gosha - it is always employed in the service of story.

And speaking of story, Hitokiri is dominated both literally and figuratively by the tortured main character Izo Okada. As most chambara protagonists, Izo finds himself in a moral double-bind, torn between giri (obligation) and ninjo (natural impulse) - although it takes a while for him to realize what exactly his giri is. In the first half of the movie Izo is trying for social self-advancement. Lofty aspirations of social rank and marriage with an aristocrat's daughter - a great progression for someone coming from a farmer's background in the rigid social caste system of 19th century Japan.

The turning point for Izo is when he realizes at what cost self-advancement comes, the loss of identity and by consequence the loss of self. It is at that point that he undergoes a very symbolic transformation from a famous swordsman of the Tosha Clan to a ""nameless"" drifter without past or future, Torazo the Vagrant. Although not technically nameless and not a genre drifter in Yojimbo's mold, it is the loss of his former self and the cast off of ego, ambition and self-dillusion that allows Izo to see things as they really are and redeem himself.

Hitokiri ends (which I won't reveal here) in the best way any story can end: both positive and negative with a deeply ironic twist that gives Izo the last laugh, a last sardonic remark in the face of death.",Positive "Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.

The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.

Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.

But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.

The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.

The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.

3/10",Negative Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves.,Negative "For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's ""The Haunting of Hill House"") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.

For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.

Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.

Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.

For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.",Negative "Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.

Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull ""holier-than-thou"" director.

Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line ""working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end"".

Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.

There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become ""good"" again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.

Severely disappointing under every aspect.",Negative "I've had a thing for this Kari chick for a while, and as far as how she looked in this movie, no complaints. But after catching it last night in HIGH DEFINITION, I am certain: that's the only thing in the movie that isn't substandard. The script is horrible, the acting is horrible, the direction is horrible. I saw in another comment someone commenting on how great the sex scenes were...what? Not at all. When a movie is this bad you might as well just turn it into softcore porn, but instead I get to see some pasty white dude blocking me from seeing Wuhrer's body and scenes that offer me nothing except a tease. They should have just gone cinemax so that the movie wasn't a complete waste of time, but no. With a script this awful they should've capitalized on Wuhrer's looks, since that's the lone pro of the movie. 2/10, only because she looked so hot.",Negative I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.,Negative """Her Cardboard Lover"" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. ""Her Cardboard Lover"" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat.

The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in ""The Women"" but not in this movie.

The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and ""When Ladies Meet"" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in ""Her Cardboard Lover"" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in ""Johnny Eager."" He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years.

Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in ""All About Eve"" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, ""The Women"", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in ""Her Cardboard Lover."" Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.

Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb ""Escape"". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, ""Personal Property"" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.",Negative "I saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.

Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.

If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.

Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.

What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and

they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.",Negative "Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the ""First Power"": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.

This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately ""The First Power"" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.

The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.

Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:

4/10",Negative "I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.

Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?

I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.

Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to ""Annie Hall"" or ""Manhattan"".",Negative "YETI deserves the 8 star rating because it is the one of the greatest bad movies ever made. I saw it at a midnight screening in L.A. and people were roaring and cheering at the insanity - this movie is one of those cinematic trainwrecks where you think it cant get any stranger and THEN IT DOES! The millionaire who funds the project to thaw the Yeti looks like Chris Penn and John Goodman both poured into an ill-fitting suit - the guy playing the scientist is one of the worst actors to ever appear on screen - and yes, there is a mute boy (who sorta kinda looks like a girl) and he's mute ever since he survived a plane crash that killed both his parents (hmmm- maybe therapy for the kid??). Then this hottie Italian girl is seen by Yeti (once he thaws - which takes FOREVER) -- and he is instantly in love with her - what is one of the most hysterical things about the movie is that this giant Yeti makes ""bedroom eyes"" at her - it's like a large Barry White trying to seduce a groupie. In fact, once the large Yeti picks up the hottie and has her against his chest - she accidentally touches the Yeti's nipple and yes, the film takes the time to show his large grey nipple GET HARD!!!! Yikes of all YIKES! Plus there's a collie dog in it because the Italian producer must have heard that American audiences like dogs and he sorta kinda tried to get a Lassie - there's also this insane scene where the Yeti eats a giant fish - keeps the large fishbone and uses it to comb the Italian girl's hair ""Gee, thanks Yeti - now my hair is smooth and smells like dead trout. You're the best."" This film is more bizarre than something Ed Wood could have ever dreamt up. If you are a fan of classic cinema crap - seek this baby out.",Positive "I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.

In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to ""The Blair Witch Project"". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled ""Army of 2"".

The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.

You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.

The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says ""Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag"".

I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.

A+.",Positive "This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.",Negative "Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...

so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!

All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.

Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!

You've got to see it!!!

And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice",Positive "This really doesn't do the blues justice. It starts out badly with images from the voyager probe and Blind Willie McTell (or was it Blind Lemon Jefferson? Someone blind anyway) apparently narrating from outer space (?) and telling us the life stories of various blues musicians. Corny as it is, this might be the visually most interesting part of this documentary. Afterwards the only thing to see is actors incompetently mouthing the classic tunes, filmed in fake 20s black and white intercut with the likes of Beck and Shemekia Copeland raping the same songs afterwards. This is a good device to show us why the old Blues greats were really so great, but it doesn't make for compelling viewing. There is hardly anything in here that could justify making it a film and not a radio play. Nobody should be forced to see these badly done reenactments. It's a shame for Wenders, Scorsese and especially for the Blues. Avoid at all costs.",Negative "Sure this was a remake of a 70's film, but it had the suspense and action of a current film, say Breakdown. He's running, desperate to be with his hospitalized wife, the police are the least concern. The chases were very good, the part with him being

cornered at a rest stop was well done, the end of the movie was a great cliffhanger. This is better than Bullitt, a boring movie with what, a muscle car chase that was filmed badly? Vigo's character knew what he had to do to escape Johnny Law, few movies had the effects-night vision, CB radio-okay I forgot the name of the movie, guy has 76'Caddy souped up, toys with guy he upset. The ending is great, you can't tell if he fakes his suicide or not, a very good did-he-make-it-or-not.",Positive "okay, but just plain dumb. Not bad for a horror/comedy film. I was reading how people switched it with the Michael version and that is a good trick in my opinion because some grown ups hate horrors and when they see this one it will get them interested in horror films like this one or maybe (never seen it) the horror (possibly comedy) uncle Sam, i'll have to see about renting or buying that film but the 2nd is way better then this one but i bought this one on VHS of Amazon and got it November 21, the day before thanksgiving. worth the four bucks, l.o.l. at this film.

9/10",Positive "because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of ""Heaven Can Wait"", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent ""Heaven Can Wait"" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.",Negative "This really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.

I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.

To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.

Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...",Negative "The performances in this movie were fantastic. The dialogue was great. Jason Patric delivered a fantastic performance as ""Kid"" Collins in this wonderful adaptation of the Jim Thompson novel. Far superior to ""The Grifters"", which was a good movie, this film really stayed true to the pulp fiction/film noir roots from which the story came. I recommend this movie to all film noir fans.",Positive "From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!",Negative "The accountant Shohei Sugiyama (Kôji Yakusho) is feeling bored with his routine life, limited to hard work and stay at home with his wife Masako Sugiyama (Hideko Hara) and his teenager's daughter. One night, while traveling home by train, he sees the beautiful face of Mai Kishikawa (Tamiyo Kusakari) in the balcony of a dance school, and a couple of days later, he decides to visit the school and secretly take ballroom dance lessons every Wednesdays night. However, he becomes ashamed to tell his family his secret. Meanwhile, Masako feels the changes in the behavior of her happier husband, and hires a private eye to investigate whether Shohei is having an affair.

I have just finished watching ""Shall We Dansu?"" and I really loved it. What a lovely and delightful movie! The story is amazingly good, with drama, comedy and romance. The cast is excellent, and I was particularly impressed with the cold beauty and graciousness of the wife of the director Masayuki Suo and professional ballet dancer Tamiyo Kusakari. On last September 06th, I saw the American remake of ""Shall We Dansu?"" for the first time, and I found it a delightful entertainment. But now I can say that it is another unnecessary remake, and I recommend this original film instead. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): ""Dança Comigo?"" (""Dance With Me?"")",Positive "24 is the best television show!!!!! It's an incredible TV series with an incredible suspense, excellent plots and unforgettable characters. And the first episode of all is my best evidence. Because it's only the first episode, only the introduction, and you are hooked because of the plot and the continuous twists and turns.

Jack Bauer is a federal agent who is assigned the protection of the senator David Palmer. He can't trust in anybody because people of the CTU may be involved. And, when this events occurred his daughter: Kimberly escapes from house to a party. But...

At the end of the episode, you want to watch more, and more, and more.

It's only the first of the lot, and it's excellent.",Positive "Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel ""Ye Shall Know Them"" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the ""missing link"" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe ""the Tropi"" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly ""human"" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.",Negative "Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, ""Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You,"" was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the ""explains it all"" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.",Negative This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.,Positive "I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.

It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.

A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.

",Negative "Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly

acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his

touch.

Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.

Avoid this one like the plague.",Negative I was pretty surprised with this flick. Even though their budjet was obviously lacking still you have to be impressed that this movie took 7 years to make and still turned out good. The acting was pretty impressive and the story really captivated me. My only complaint would be that the ending really was a little too abrupt for my taste. But hey if your audience is left wanting more then this movie has succeeded.

I would really recommend anyone in Hollywood to look up Antonella Ríos who is an excellent Spanish talent (something hard to find now days with all the bad novela over acting). Antonella Ríos truly is a star on the rise.,Positive """This story is dedicated to women,"" according to the introduction, ""who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system."" When ""Politics"" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.

Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, ""everything"" in the ""parlor, bedroom, and bath.""

The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations (""You look like Madame Queen"" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).

**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates",Negative "I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, ""problems"" develop.

It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947",Positive "I saw this film earlier today, and I was amazed at how accurate the dialog is for the main characters. It didn't feel like a film - it felt more like a documentary (the part I liked best). The leading ladies in this film seemed as real to me as any fifteen year-old girls I know.

All in all, a very enjoyable film for those who enjoy independent films.",Positive "I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live ""in town"" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear.",Negative "The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.",Positive "The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix.",Negative "Like another reviewer said, this movie is not a heavy melodrama, but it deals with harsh realities. A very very playful movie that does not dwell for a moment. Some very good acting and some wonderful smiles as well.",Positive "*****probably minor spoilers******

I cant say i liked it, but i cant say i didn't...its very strange. It has bad things in it like for example a shark that came out of nowhere with the worst CGI you can imagine,if i was the director i would cut that part for sure, gave me the urge to stop seeing the rest of the movie... For some people it will be boring cause it lacks action, feels home made sometimes... Take for example a scene that one of the friends died and next thing they are doing is what? nop,not crying...their telling horror stories to each other..*sighs*(just after crying for hes lost)

Another stupid thing was when they were talking inside the boat they had like ""hundreds"" of candles in the table in front of them...the boat is surrounded by some kind of rag curtains(old rags covering the windows) and sofas/Couches ...i thought it was dumb, using candles but not thinking about the surroundings, besides being in high sea alone...

The good, some scary scenes they are nicely done i liked some. Sometimes horror works better when its hidden when its behind something instead of showing of, so this movie does it good, maybe because its a low budget i don't know, but it works fine for me! You will feel tension if you forget some holes like the ones i mentioned above.

Do not expect much of it! but if you like anykind of movie watch this one, be patient, try to enjoy.. lol

(sorry about my raw English) =)

Cheers",Negative "This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.

This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the ""Führer"" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.

One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of ""Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland""",Negative "The past few months I have collected Voyager seasons 4 to 7 on DVD (I only had 1 to 3 on video before that, because Kes is my favourite character) and have just reached the end. I saw them when they were originally shown on TV here in the UK but had forgotten most of it. Am I satisfied with the ending? I think I am. Naturally as I fan I would have liked to have seen more about what happened to the characters when they got home but that's left to our imagination. In many ways ""Endgame"" is similar to Next Gen's ""All Good Things…"" The involvement of the crew in the future, but mainly the captain. A new romance starting in the finale (Troi and Worf in Next Gen and Seven of Nine and Chakotay here), which results in death in the future. I truly loved ""Endgame,"" fair to all characters, Neelix appears although he left the ship two episodes earlier. B'elanna gives birth to her daughter with loving husband Tom. Tuvok is ill but returning home means he can be cured. Harry has always been the most anxious and determined but admits the journey is important. The Doctor, in the future, is well respected by all and finally chooses the name Joe! But of course the Captain has the largest role, meeting her future self who wants to get the crew home earlier to prevent casualties. The Borg are involved, as they have played a massive part in this period of Voyager. Alice Krige plays the Borg Queen again fantastically, just her voice and acting method are magnificent. I feel sorry for Susanna Thompson though, the TV Borg queen replaced by the movie Borg queen. Maybe she wasn't available though. The special effects are fantastic, the Borg sub space hub and the Borg queen falling apart! It's very tense. Especially when they come out of the Borg subspace corridor and say their location is right where they thought they'd be after they'd said they'd have to go in a corridor that leads back to the delta quadrant. And what a wonderful idea to get inside a Borg sphere for protection, on the DVD special features they say it was like the Trojan horse. Voyager could have continued. If it was more popular they would have stuck with their original idea of the crew realising the ship is their home, like in Harry's speech and what Tom said because his wife and child are there. And then they could have got home in a film!

Overall, Voyager was a bit hit and miss. The sixth season seemed to be one good one followed by one less than good one. The two episodes set in the Holographic Irish village are horrible! My perception of Seven of Nine was that she took over, it all revolved around her, which wasn't true. When she first appeared, season 4 was focused on her for too many of the episodes but it evened out after that. And her character is ingenious at times, 20 years as a Borg drone gradually rediscovering her humanity. I like her, especially in ""Someone to Watch Over Me,"" ""Imperfection,"" and ""Human Error."" When Naomi Wildman was scared of her initially but then became her friend often by her side, that was lovely. Chakotay became my least favourite character. Gone was the chemistry with Janeway (will they/won't they?) and you'd never think he was first officer, he's completely pushed aside most of the time. I loved seeing Tom and B'elanna's relationship blossom against the odds. I always liked Neelix a lot. Tuvok was good at times, especially when he lost his logic, gained emotion and was friends with Neelix. Harry was annoying at times but a okay character at other times. The Doctor is probably my favourite, seeing how far he comes and comedy situations he creates (""Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy"" is fantastic!). Janeway is my favourite Captain of any series and you can tell Kate Mulgrew is really enjoying it.

I wish there was more, I love Voyager!",Positive "This movie was bizarre, completely inexplicable, and hysterical to watch with friends while drinking in a big empty house. I really love the opening stuff with Lisa wandering about lost in a gorgeous city. I want to be a beautiful stranger lost in some exotic European locale, though maybe not in a low budget horror flick. Definitely get the ending where there are the strangely non-sexual sex scenes that were cut out (in my DVD copy anyway). Don't attempt to understand it, just go along and watch out for the weird bits...which is everything. Don't watch this if you actually want plot or characterization or anything at all to make sense. Pretty beautiful, though you may just give up on this and decide to watch an actual horror movie, like say, Dead Alive.",Negative "I didn't approach ""Still Crazy"" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10",Positive "I found this to be the most enjoyable Muppets movie, because I felt it was the most light-hearted and had the best comic delivery on most of its lines. The Muppets try to go on Broadway to sell an original musical they've written, but along the way, they run into the usual problems, including Kermit's memory loss here. While there aren't as many great cameos here as in the original ""Muppets Movie,"" there are some including Joan Rivers and Dabney Coleman. Simply the timing and delivery of so many of the lines is great, and the situations the Muppets find themselves in are hilarious. The original songs are also good here, and the ending is satisfying. There is not much else to say about the film, but Muppet fans should see it for sure. It is the funniest Muppet movie and is sure to be enjoyed by all.

***1/2 out of ****",Positive "

I'm sure things didn't exactly go the same way in the real life of Homer Hickam as they did in the film adaptation of his book, Rocket Boys, but the movie ""October Sky"" (an anagram of the book's title) is good enough to stand alone. I have not read Hickam's memoirs, but I am still able to enjoy and understand their film adaptation. The film, directed by Joe Johnston and written by Lewis Colick, records the story of teenager Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), beginning in October of 1957. It opens with the sound of a radio broadcast, bringing news of the Russian satellite Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in orbit. We see a images of a blue-gray town and its people: mostly miners working for the Olga Coal Company. One of the miners listens to the news on a hand-held radio as he enters the elevator shaft, but the signal is lost as he disappears into the darkness, losing sight of the starry sky above him. A melancholy violin tune fades with this image. We then get a jolt of Elvis on a car radio as words on the screen inform us of the setting: October 5, 1957, Coalwood, West Virginia. Homer and his buddies, Roy Lee Cook (William Lee Scott) and Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg), are talking about football tryouts. Football scholarships are the only way out of the town, and working in the mines, for these boys. ""Why are the jocks the only ones who get to go to college,"" questions Homer. Roy Lee replies, ""They're also the only ones who get the girls."" Homer doesn't make it in football like his older brother, so he is destined for the mines, and to follow in his father's footsteps as mine foreman. Until he sees the dot of light streaking across the October sky. Then he wants to build a rocket. ""I want to go into space,"" says Homer. After a disastrous attempt involving a primitive rocket and his mother's (Natalie Canerday) fence, Homer enlists the help of the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen). Quentin asks Homer, ""What do you want to know about rockets?"" Homer quickly anwers, ""Everything."" His science teacher at Big Creek High School, Miss Frieda Riley (Laura Dern) greatly supports Homer, and the four boys work on building rockets in Homer's basement. His father, however, whose life is the mine, does not support him. John Hickam (Chris Cooper) believes that Homer shouldn't waste his time on the rockets, that the coal mines are all that matter. The coal from the mines is used to make steel, and without steel, the country would be nothing. The difficult relationship between Homer and his dad is one of the most poignant relationships I have ever seen in a film. Miss Riley introduces Homer to the idea of entering the local science fair, with a chance to go the nationals and win a college scholarship. ""You can't just dream your way out of Coalwood,"" she tells Homer. Homer and his friends act upon their dreams by working constantly on the rockets, improving the models with each attempt. Despite the many attempts, the boys do not lose their determination. ""What are the chances of us winning that science fair,"" O'Dell asks Homer in one of their more despairing moments. ""A million to one,"" answers Homer. ""That good?"" O'Dell replies, ""Well, why didn't you say so?"" The music, composed by Mark Isham, conveys sadness and hope at the same time, especially sad at a point when Homer descends into the mine shaft and loses sight of the sky and his dreams of getting out of Coalwood. Rollicking 1950s' rock and roll, including songs by The Coasters and Buddy Holly, occasionally pushes the instrumental pieces aside to create a light-hearted mood that contrasts the teenagers' lives with the lives of the miners. The film, photographed by Fred Murphy, also uses colors to set moods and symbolize. The town of Coalwood, actually filmed in Tennessee, is washed with blues, grays, and browns. It's as if the grime from the coal sticks to everything- faces, clothes, houses, and roads. When a couple in a gleaming red convertible stops to ask for directions from the boys, it is obvious that they are from the world outside of Coalwood and the Olga Coal Company. The book on guided missile design that Miss Riley gives Homer is red. The red stands out enough against the blue-gray world of Coalwood to symbolize ""getting out"", but it is still subtle. The reds are fleeting hints of a world that Homer only dreams of. Jake Gyllenhaal expresses such zeal, hope, and pertinacity as Homer Hickam that it is hard to believe he isn't the real Homer we see in actual footage at the end of the film. Chris Cooper is also extraordinarily believable as Homer's stubborn father, who doesn't recognize, or just doesn't want to admit, that the mine is not producing enough to keep the town alive. Homer, and everyone who encourages him in his rocket-building, is aware that the town is dying. With the community disintegrating, the only way they stay together is by gathering for the rocket boys' demonstrations. Again, I'm sure things didn't happen exactly as the movie portrayed them, but what would a movie be without a bit of idealism? ""October Sky"" has just enough of that to make it a great motion picture and enough rawness to keep it real.",Positive Powers Booth is hypnotic as cult leader jim jones who led his Peoples Temple followers from 1953 until 1978 when he led them in a mass suicide in 1978 where over 900 died. A very well done movie which may seem a little dated due to the 70s time period but well worth the time 8 of 10,Positive "There are many problems with Mystery Men. First of all there are too many different characters for all of them to be given complex or even interesting personalities. The special effects detract from the story and are not really that special. Paul Reubens is wasted in a pathetic, juvenile role as a character who merely farts and speaks in an inaudible accent.

Now onto the decent parts. William H Macy, three heavenly words, and his performance as the shoveler is pitch perfect. The sphinx is an exceptionally funny character who is only mysterious and merely spouts out the traditional mystical proverbs. Ben Stiller is very amusing as well, showing a weak character trying to make it into the big leagues of superheroes. All of the characters do, and that is an area which I found particuarly ironic. That is because all of the actors are Indie film actors trying to make it into the big leagues of Hollywood.

To be honest, the reason I thought it failed at the box-office is that America doesn't get irony.

All in all I loved the film, but I feel it would have worked better if more effort was put into tweaking the script rather than having unneccesary CGI landscapes and effects.",Positive "I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away.",Positive "ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including ""We Hate to Leave"", Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of ""Jalousie""; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of ""I Fall in Love Too Easily"" (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and ""The Worry Song"", a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory.",Positive "Elephant Walk (1954) Starring an early Peter Finch as lord of the manor in some God-forsaken plantation where there is always the danger of elephants or mad Englishmen, staying out in the midday sun and going berserk. Well eventually they do, after the typhoid or cholera outbreak, of course, and much mayhem ensues. Taylor replaced an ailing Vivien Leigh in this pot boiler/adventure flick. When the elephants storm the house and trap Liz on the grand staircase I still get goose bumps. Thank goodness Dana Andrews is around to save the day. One of my favorite guilty pleasures. In color too!",Positive "Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at ""modern day"" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, ""Where It's At"" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****",Negative i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..,Negative "What does the "" Executive producer "" do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies "" starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch

PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly",Negative This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.

What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!

Can raise your BP level by 10%

All actors played their role very well.

Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.

This movie is quite adult in nature.

Not a movie that can be seen with family.

Casting is great!!!,Positive "I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.",Negative "I must admit a slight disappointment with this film; I had read a lot about how spectacular it was, yet the actual futuristic sequences, the Age of Science, take up a very small amount of the film. The sets and are excellent when we get to them, and there are some startling images, but this final sequence is lacking in too many other regards...

Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the ""Boss"" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.

Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are!

Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the ""super gun"" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist ""we don't believe in independent nation states""-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.

Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.

I would say that ""Things to Come"" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous.

Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate.

""Things to Come"", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a ""Metropolis""... 'Tis much as ""silly"", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it.",Positive "I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus.

The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on.

I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.",Negative "the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH!",Negative "CAT SOUP has two ""Hello Kitty""-type kittens embarking on a bizarre trip through the afterlife, where anything can happen, and does. This mind-tripping Asian short uses no dialog, substituting word balloons instead. There is no way of describing this demented cartoon except to tell you to see it for yourself. And make sure no one under 10 is in the room. Dismemberment and cannibalism and cruelty and savagery and sudden death and callous disregard for others are common themes. Honest. Perhaps the most memorable image is that of an elephant composed of water that the kitties swim through and in, and also ride. But like practically everything else in this film, that silly, picaresque interlude soon comes to a horrible end.",Positive "This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups.",Positive "I am proud to say I own an uncut copy of this choice chunk of 70's Crown International drive-in sexploitation comedy cheese on DVD. It's a really goofy and enjoyably inconsequential flick with a nicely breezy'n'easy 70's vibe to it. It does attempt to make a sincere point about true love and friendship being more important in life than a cool set of wheels and a quick piece of tail. Sure, it's essentially a blatant adolescent male fantasy pic -- the main teen goofus character Bobby Hamilton gets the girls, the respect of his friends, and a chance to show-up a local van-racing bully -- but it's way too dopey and good-natured to hate. Stuart Getz as our gawky protagonist makes for an endearingly dorky lead, Deborah White as the main object of Getz's affection is a definite cutie, Connie Lisa Marie is likewise quite luscious as a beauteous blonde babe, and sneering beefcake Neanderthal Stephan Oliver (a 60's biker movie perennial) is wonderfully hateful as the brutish Dugan Hicks. A pre-stardom Danny DeVito in particular is an absolute riot as Getz's cranky carwash owner boss Andy, a lovably cantankerous ne'er-do-well slob who wears very ugly loud Hawaiian shirts and suffers from a severe gambling habit. I especially love the scene where two thugs brutally beat Danny up -- one holds his arms behind his back while the other guy works over Danny's torso! And Sammy Johns' insidiously catchy fluke hit theme song will be bouncing around your skull for at least a week. In short, it's great groovy retro-70's fun!",Positive "Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment.",Positive "At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some ""repertoire"" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious.",Positive "Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.",Positive "Del - ""You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met.""

Calvin- ""Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes.""

I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.

There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.

Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.",Negative "I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises.",Positive "I thought that Mr. Dreyfuss was perfect for his role as the actor and the dictator. His co-star, Mr. Julia, played his role equally as perfect. It was interesting to see how reluctant Richard Dreyfuss was in replacing the dictator against his will. But he became more confident and comfortable with the role as time passed. Since everything happens for a reason in life, I believe he was forced to replace the dictator because he was meant to stay there for over the year that he did. I'm guessing that he stayed because he was supposed to see how good his life was compared to the poverty he witnessed in Parador. I think he took too many things for granted in life and he needed to get a serious reality check by remaining in that country for as long as he did.

But........... anyways........... this is why I gave this film a 7 out of 10.",Positive "You know when you're on the bus and someone decides to tell you their life-story, and you sit there with a pathetic smile on your face when all you really want to do is slap the fool and walk off? Well I had a similar sensation while watching this film. Okay, I did actually choose to go and see Aprile, and I knew about Nanni Moretti's taste for making himself the one and only star from Caro Diario, but after about half an hour of this latest installment from his memoirs I wanted to give Moretti the madre of all slaps. Caro Diario was funny, unusual, and at least a couple of other characters managed to get a word in edgeways. In Aprile, however, Moretti has exclusive rights to the dialogue, so that all you hear for an hour and a half is a high-pitched whine going on about how his politics are best, or what quirky piece of popular culture is tickling his fancy at the moment. He also finds time to slag off films that he doesn't like, something I thought was reserved for losers like me. Surely being in a position like his you'd think he'd try and make a point about cinema a little more intelligently than this. By making a proper film perhaps, one with some ideas and a decent structure, or maybe one that isn't completely dominated by his annoying voice. And when he started fawning over his newborn baby, I just wanted to go and be in the company of someone normal, preferably not a self-obsessed film director with a strange penchant for tacky music. The next time someone you don't know tries to tell you their life-story, give them a slap from me. Every blow will be a small victory in the fight against Morettiism.",Negative "I caught ""Sorrows Lost"" at the New York Film and Video Festival and I guess I had some high hopes for this film. Sadly, this is just another Visual FX calling card. The story is pretty lame. The bad lighting and camera work, along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality.

Is it really too much to ask that FX shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the FX! You can't just get away with cool FX in shorts anymore, it's been 5 years since ""405"" made a big splash. At least that short quick, cool and was even a little funny! None of that can be said about ""Sorrows Lost.""",Negative "1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end.",Negative "At one end of the Eighties Warren Beatty created and starred in the literate epic Reds about the founding of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of iconoclast radical John Reed. It was a profound film both entertaining and with a message presented by an all star cast. At the end of the decade Warren Beatty created another kind of epic in Dick Tracy that makes no pretense to being anything other than entertainment with a whole bunch of the best actors around just having a great old time hamming it up under tons of makeup.

That both Reds and Dick Tracy could come from the same individual speaks volumes about the range this man has as a player. In this film Beatty managed to get all the famous cartoon characters from the strip and put them in one original screenplay.

The city's top mobster Big Boy Caprice is making a move to really eliminate competition. The film opens with him rubbing out Lips Manlis's henchmen in a Valentine Massacre style shooting and then Lips himself being fitted for a cement overcoat. But Caprice's moves are making him a target for Tracy.

In the meantime a third mysterious and faceless individual is looking to topple Caprice himself. Will our hero sort out this thicket of crime?

The spirit of fun this film has is truly infectious. When people like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, R.G. Armstrong get themselves outrageously made-up to look like the cartoon creations of strip author Chester Gould and then indulge in an exercise of carving the biggest slice of ham, you've got to love this film.

Al Pacino got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but any of these guys could have, it's only that Pacino as Big Boy Caprice gets the most screen time. Only Beatty plays it completely straight, the others all seem to play off of him. Dick Tracy won Oscars for Best Art&Set Design, Best Song written by Stephen Sondheim and introduced by Madonna, Sooner Or Later. The fact he was even able to get somebody like Sondheim to write a score for this film only shows Sondheim wanted to get in on the fun. As for Madonna, the Material Girl does more than hold her own with all these acting heavyweights as club torch singer Breathless Mahoney.

Before this film, Dick Tracy movies were consigned to the B pictures and worse as Saturday afternoon serials. The only thing that rivals this all star extravaganza is a radio broadcast done for Armed Forces Radio during World War II that got to vinyl. Can you believe a cast like Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore, Jimmy Durante, Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, and the Andrews Sisters? Try and find a recording of that gem.

Until then Warren Beatty's classic comic strip for the big screen will do nicely.",Positive "Vaguely reminiscent of great 1940's westerns, like ""The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre"" (1948), ""Red Rock West"" is a story about conscience, greed, and betrayal. Michael (Nicolas Cage) is a down and out, but honest, young man from Texas who goes west in search of work and money. He finds both, but not in the way he had expected.

The film's screenplay contains plenty of surprises and plot twists. Excellent cinematography, adroit film editing, and moody western music add tension and suspense. The expansiveness of the big sky country provides a wonderful setting. And the acting ranges from good to excellent, with great performances from Dennis Hopper and J.T. Walsh. Dwight Yoakam's specially recorded country/western song provides the film with a strong finale.

Correctly labeled as neo-noir, ""Red Rock West"" strikes me as being something else, as well. The plot is full of amazing coincidences and improbable timing, so much so that others may regard the screenplay as flawed. Ordinarily, I would agree. In this case, however, when combined with the moody atmosphere, and the fact that the small town of Red Rock seems almost empty of normal daily life, the coincidences and unlikely timing suggest a story that, beyond ""noirish"", is ... surreal. It's almost as if fate deliberately intervenes with improbable events so as to force Michael to come to grips with himself. From this point of view, the coincidences are not script flaws at all. They are necessary plot points in a nightmarish story of a young man who must confront his own demons ... disguised as other characters.

All we need here is Rod Serling, in a postscript, explaining, in his always clearly enunciated voice, that ... a young man, searching for himself, stops in a small, almost deserted town a thousand miles from nowhere. It's his final layover in a journey to ... the twilight zone.",Positive "I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art.",Positive "My scalp still smarts from the burning coals heaped on it when I vowed I love this film. Bring on the coals; I'll walk over them as well to say again that I love ""Bend it Like Beckham."" Granted, there's a lot of ""in spite of"" in that confession. It's a bit movie-of-the-week; the screenplay is on the paint-by-numbers side. And, most troublingly, the director's commentary implies that in this film beauty can be found primarily amongst the white of skin.

The film's genius is not in what's obvious to the Syd Field-doctored eye: character arcs, themes, construction. It's in both the surface and what lurks deep beneath, but not in those layers of artistic topsoil that reviewers seem most often to scratch at. Powerful, sometimes semi-clad female bodies not simply on display but kicking the crap out of a football do a better job of naturalizing female strength and agility than Lara Croft or Zhang Ziyi will ever do. These are real bodies (Keira Knightley's excepted) whose work is not to look great first and kick butt later. They are working bodies whose beauty is in their movement and self-determination. And, in my book, lead actress Parminder Nagra is one of the most gorgeous creatures ever captured on screen – not only because she can lay claim to that hackneyed adjective, ""luminous,"" but because her performance has an honesty and un-bookish intelligence that's utterly compelling.

The result is a film women can enjoy without feeling like they're making a pact with the devil to do so. As in Chadha's ""Bride and Prejudice,"" the relationships amongst women sizzle with a chemistry that can't be neatly slotted into the stodgy, Sweet Valley High categories of ""best friends"" or ""sisters."" Perhaps Chadha is even right in her commentary to disavow the film's flirtation with lesbianism. ""Bend it Like Beckham"" has an electricity that can't be reduced to the simple hetero/homosexual love triangle its conventionally structured script would suggest. The precise nature of its pleasure is, ultimately, a bit of a mystery – and is all the more seductive for it.

Oh yes, and did I mention that it's hilarious?",Positive "I just watched ""The Last Wave"" in my school's fine arts library. It's intriguing, like all Peter Weir's stuff, but it's not always as attention-holding as I would have liked. I found myself fascinated by the ideas being thrown at me (because they are very well handled by the film's director Weir)but at the same time I was not stimulated enough by them. AKA I got a little bored in spots.

The plot surrounds an Aussie lawyer who becomes obsessed with certain dreams he has which link him to an Aborigone group he is defending.

It starts out with an intense weather sequence and has some very awesome mood effects throughout (most notably the bizarre, ""belching"" sound design)and strong direction; but it just didn't entertain me like Weir's later films do. I might just need to watch it again though.

Good film about obsession and mystery. Because, in the end, the mystery that exists between the whites and the Aboriginies offers some very severe consequences.

God bless Peter Weir, though. For him alone this film is worth watching ... very organic director. Like an Aussie response Malick! I'd give it a 7 because it's got enough great ideas to overcome its boring moments.",Positive "This is the best of the 43 films that Rainer Werner Fassbinder made; his most successful at least. He was one of the leading directors in the New Germany after WWII.

Hanna Schygulla was magnificent as the cold, calculating Maria Bruan, who lost her husband to the War, found him after she took an American soldier as a lover, lost him again after he went to jail for her, and found him agin at the end. Her day and a half marriage before he disappeared was longer than their time together at the end.

Such is life. Things come and go, and you do the best you can. You can give up or adjust you way of thinking to survive. Even though Maria adjusted her thinking and did what she had to do, she never stopped loving Hermann, which makes the end such a tragedy.

Excellent drama.",Positive "The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The ""suspenseful"" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry.",Negative "It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip ""Basic Instinct 2,"" to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. ""Basic Instinct 2"" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending ""Basic Instinct 2"" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.",Positive "I read a few reviews of this TV movie which all said that the film dragged on for too long and that it was basically only sensationalistic entertainment. I agree that perhaps, the film goes on a bit too long (2h30 would have been enough...) but I certainly do not think it sensationalize the subject matter. Jim Jones' expansive power trip and slow degradation into mental illness, paranoia and drug abuse are never treated in a voyeuristic manner. The movie takes its time in showing how Jones recruited followers (Brenda Vaccaro's and Brad Dourif's character are stand-outs in that matter) but also in observing an uncanny shift in Jones' perception of reality. It is mind-boggling to see an egalitarian, left-wing and compassionnate preacher become such a destructive and cruel dictator. Perhaps the movie doesn't explore Jones' motivations enough, which can make the whole ordeal a bit superficial at times (may have to do with censorship as well...) But Powers Boothe's mesmerizing performance makes it all come true. I am not familiar with the details of the real Jim Jones' life, but Boothe sure makes the monster he plays believable and real. The movie features many strong scenes, among them the preaching messes of Jones, Jones's meeting with Father Divine (a remarquable James Earl Jones), Congressman Leo Ryan (Ned Beatty)'s visit to the Guyana camp and of course, the suicide scene. It is quite a gloomy spectable to watch and Boothe is quite commanding in those last moments. Madge Sinclair shines in this scene as one of the suddenly sceptic follower, and so do Veronica Cartwright (as Jones' wife) and Brad Dourif, especially when their time comes to drink the murderous potion. The relative calm of the end of this scene, the tasteful direction and the contrasting beauty of the natural surroundings all work in making those images quite impossible to erase from one's mind. A disturbing reflection on human nature and its weaknesses. Worth watching, if only to keep in mind one of the truly horrific events of the 20th century. Not to let it be repeated again. Like, ironically, the inscription in Jim Jones' camp: ""Those who do not know the past are bound to repeat it"".",Positive "I got to see the movie "" On Thin Ice"" on the television in India.. I must say the movie was really well done, and really sent a chill down my spine.. the basic story makes me ponder what makes certain addicts decide to move on where as others still remain addicted...

however, I felt that Diane Keaton was at her best... the scene where she has cravings, and begins rummaging her home for cocaine... was the best... the two boys are good, and Lynda Boyd also showed what a good actress she is....The script is well done as is the cinematography and direction.. and casting

A must must watch movie..... for everyone",Positive "While I do not think this was a perfect 10, I do agree it was way above a 6 which is what it's rated here. No, Brokedown Palace was not perfect and yes it's plot has been done many times before. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again if it is done well and I think this movie had some strong moments. The acting of Claire Danes, as already mentioned many times, was flawless as was Kate Beckinsell and I Think Bill Pullman was absolutely terrific as was the supporting performances(Pullman's wife, the crooked cop, skip or trip or whatever his name is). The cinematography was also beautifully filmed, there was a lot that's good to this movie even if there were some negatives(three major ones that I found) as well.

Here is what I didn't like about it-the friendship between the girls-In fact, the girls' own individual personalities-were not developed in depth until the late middle of the pic. It would not have been improbable to lose interest before then, because, despite the positives, more character development should have been done earlier on and certain scenes like when the girls were originally arrested, were almost glossed over so there was a bit to much Jumping around without the character and scene development I think would have been appropriate for this type of film. That, however, is not my major problem. And WARNING-SPOILER ALERT.

The ending as mentioned dozens of times already, was AWFUL. It was awful in two respects. Firstly, even though it would have been predictable and very Hollywood, I wanted a happy ending! Yes, it was an emotional and powerful ending but in a movie such as this, there is a Sense that justice will be served and I did sit through it to see that. I was Genuinely shocked at the ending and It was performed with excellence by all involved but I feel both girls should have got out or, barring that, at least the cop should have got what was coming to him. I mean nothing happens To the bad guys, they all get away with it. Very disturbing.

Also, I do not understand the ambiguity of the ending. I understand endings that are inspired to make one think, but this was not a mystery or ""Clue"" type movie we were watching, and I would have liked to know something about what actually happened,who was guilty etc, with this ending we were left to decide that ourselves but since I somehow doubt there will be a sequel, I did not want to be kept guessing.

Still, there was a lot to like about this movie, and the acting is definitely at the top of the list,I would rate this a 7.5 and say it is definitely worth a look.",Positive "ROUEN PRIZES AND THE TRIUMPH OF ""VILLA PARANOIA"" The favorite film of the general public, actually more important than the jury prize, was Erik Clausen's brilliant bittersweet dramatic comedy, ""Villa Paranoia"", which was also selected by the European Youth Jury indicative of its appeal to cinephiles of all ages. The following day director-actor Clausen traveled to the remote Town of MAMERS, Pays de Loire, for a provincial festival of new European cinema, where ""Villa Paranoia"" picked up three more prizes -- Best film, Professional Jury; Best Film, Audience prize; and Best film of another youth jury composed of ""lycéens"", French high school students. Five prizes in a single weekend -- not a bad scoop for a film from a small country with unknown actors. In addition, ""Villa"" was awarded the Grand Prix, the MAVERICK SPIRIT AWARD, at San Jose, California, just a week ago, by distinguished British actor Sir Ben Kingsley (""Ghandi""), making for a grand total of six prizes in a single week. If Lars van Trier has put Denmark on the offbeat-oddball Dogma Cinematic map in recent years, there is now a good chance that Veteran Maverick Erik Clausen (62) and his capable crew of actors will soon show the world that Denmark has more to offer than dogmatic drivel, which is to say, a mass audience pleaser for young and old alike. Moreover, the female lead of his film, Sonja Richter, has such a magical screen presence that, with a little more exposure, she stands a good chance of becoming the next international Scandinavian Diva. For the record, ""Villa Paranoia"" is a fiction film, written, directed and acted in by Mr. Clausen, and employing certain motifs from Moliere's ""The Imaginary Invalid"". Anna (Richter), an ambitious young actress, has lost a deeply coveted role in the Moliere play and, reduced to making an utterly stupid TV chicken commercial, is on the verge of suicide. However, Jorgen (Clausen) who runs a massive chicken farm sponsoring the spot, offers her a job with room and board taking care of his cantankerous, senile, wheel-chair ridden father, Walentin, who has not spoken a word since his wife Stella committed suicide years before. Anna is the only one who eventually finds a way of communicating with the hostile silent old grouch -- and moreover, discovers that he has been faking deafness and immobility all these years -- a living ""Malade Imaginaire"". This will lead to her playing the greatest role of her own life in order to uncover the dark secret which led to Walentin's total withdrawal from life and reality. Villa ""Paradise-Paranoia"", true to the Moliere tradition from which it is partially derived, is a heartwarming, multi-layered, serial-comic psycho-drama that literally has something for everybody and only needs proper placement to attain the kind of general international outreach it richly deserves. Alex Deleon, Paris / 21 MARCH, 2005",Positive "When this cartoon first aired I was under the impression that it would be at least half way descent, boy was I wrong. I must admit watching this cartoon is almost as painful as watching Batman and Robin with George Clooney all those years ago. I watched a few episodes and two of them had Batman literally get his ass kicked left and right by the Penguin who fought like Jet Li and beat the crap out of Batman and I watched another episode where Batman got his butt kicked again by the Joker, who apparently was using Jackie Chan moves while flipping in the air like a ninja. Since when were the Joker or the Penguin ever a match for Batman ? and worse yet when were Joker and Penguin Kung Fu counterparts of Jackie Chan and Jet Li. It's truly embarrassing, depressing and sad the way the image of Batman is portrayed in this show. The animation is awful and the dialog is terrible. Being a Batman fan since my boyhood I can honestly and strongly advise you to stay away and avoid this show at all cost, because it doesn't project the true image of Batman. This cartoon is more like a wannabe Kung Fu Flick and if you really wanna see a classic Batman cartoon I strongly recommend Batman the Animated Series, but this cartoon is nothing more than a piece of S---T! Get Batman: The Animates Series and don't waste your time with this cartoon.",Negative "What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.

Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.

Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in ""Killer Tongue,"" if you have not seen that yet.

The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.

So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with ""Crocodile"" after this is rather sad. ""Night Terrors"" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.

",Positive "Madison is not too bad-—if you like simplistic, non-offensive, ""family-friendly"" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the ""glory years"" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a ""heroic"" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a ""Rocky"" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, ""The sport deserves better than this.""

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971",Negative "This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing.",Negative "Enterprise, the latest high budget spin-off to the most successful franchise in film and or television history opens to the tune of a 90-minute episode called 'Broken Bow'. First we are swept into a massive action sequence with a Klingon being chased by some Suliban (who are the main enemy in the first season of the show). From there the televised movie takes us on a journey that seldom gets as good as it is, with some of the best character development, story and action/visual effects ever seen in such a short amount of time.

The opening-credits is a debatable subject among the minority of Enterprise fans, whom some believe that the song is out of place. What they fail to realise is the lyrics themselves. If one listens to the actual song, instead of the theme, then they will begin to piece the parts of the puzzle together. And eventually as the series progresses further and further, and we learn more about our valiant captain and his crew, will the song actually become meaningful. Overall Diane Warren's theme is beautifully orchestrated and is sung just as well by opera singer Russell Watson.

What makes any television show watchable and worth watching time and time again is its characters and the way they become structured and layered. Enterprise is (in my opinion) one of the most well cast shows since The Next Generation. Choosing Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer was the best decision since Gene himself cast Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. As the captain always leads the show, Bakula adds a subtlety to his role and brings a huge smile to the faces of anyone with blood pumping in their veins. He simply is (both actor wise and character wise) a superb human being and his charm, wit, and compassion are overwhelming to watch. As for the other cast members, a favourite of mine is John Billingsley who plays Dr. Phlox. It's also nice to see a non-human playing a role, and the decision to give the captain a dog, named 'Porthos' was a well-received idea. Throughout the show character development was brilliant, it was fast, well timed and almost perfect. I say almost because sadly Travis Mayweather's character played by the Briton Anthony Montgomery is a little weak at the end of the first season. He does have some things to say here and there, but remains in the hands of the producers to make him more important. Jolene Blalock is wonderful as the sometimes harsh but equally loveable Subcommander T'Pol. Dominic Keating as Lieutenant Malcolm Reed plays a strong role and is convincing as the armoury officer. Connor Trinneer plays Commander Charles ""Trip"" Tucker who always adds charm and comedic style to his character and finally Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato, who often plays a weaker character but thankfully quickly becomes interesting. All of these characters make up Enterprise, and all bring a quality that Star Trek hasn't seen in a long time. Each person makes this show worth watching. Smiles and feel-good senses are guaranteed right from the first time we see them all together on the bridge of the starship Enterprise NX-01.

The ship itself, the NX-01 is somewhat questionable in design. The series is set 150 years from now and 100 years before Captain Kirk. So why then does the ship appear to be similar in design to mid 24th century ships, namely the Akira class starship? Continuity has been an issue in Enterprise, but thankfully Rick [Berman] and Brannon [Braga] offer suitable explanations for each and everyone of them. Continuity is only a problem if you are forever scrutinising shows and are obsessed with the tiniest of details. If you see the show with and open mind, then you'll have no problems, but there is an urge to know 'why' all the time. So what did Berman and Braga offer to the Star Trek fan-base with the issue of the deign of the ship itself? According to them the NX-01 is how it is because of the incident in First Contact. When Zefram Cochrane saw the Enterprise-E through his telescope and from speaking with the away team lead by Commander Riker, it changed the ideas in his head. That's a good enough explanation for me.lets move on. Of course its not as easy for some fans to accept that sort of answer, some go as far as to refuse to see the show until they get a reasonable answer. Come on guys grow up.When George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars saga with the launch of his profit making new trilogy, fans couldn't do anything, only watch and sap it all up anyway. And then they learned that, well maybe its not that bad after all. If you can't accept a quality show for what it is, not what it should be in your mind, then go elsewhere. Or try becoming a producer on the show and then see what you can do.

The sets on Enterprise remind me very much of the Defiant from Deep Space Nine. They often appear cold and have an eerie look of modern structure to them and they cry out that they belong to the military. Perhaps that why the crew of the USS Enterprise (aka flagship of the American fleet) like it so much. They are striking sets, and represent the show perfectly.

Rick Berman 'the overlord of the empire' as John Logan so accurately put it and his counterpart Brannon Braga has hit the nail on the head exactly where they should have, and in all the right places. Whether that be technicalities, visuals, sound, editing or score. Enterprise is a fine demonstration to just how good televised science fiction can ultimately be, when in the hands of geniuses. The late Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this series and as a Star Trek fan, so should you.",Positive "How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.

Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.

Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.

As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.

Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.

He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.

The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.

",Positive "Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.",Negative "Lil Bush is a 30 minute cartoon show comprised of 2 15 minutes episodes shown on Comedy Central. It takes place in a fictional, cartoonish Washington D.C., and centers around the satirical, childish representations of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney. Other politicians are also satirized in the same manner, and act as minor characters.

The pilot of little Bush, much to this commentator's expectations, proved to be a rather shallow and esoteric production, which barely delivers on its featured promise: a satirical look at the current presidential administration. While one must admit that premise of the show does have SOME merit, even though it would be hard to imagine a show based almost completely of the denigration of a single political persona would survive to continue to produce episodes after his term of office expired, execution that can only be described as sloppy at best, and downright awful at worst, has marred what little potential the show had.

Lil Bush, which may be technically classified as ""satire"", tends to disregard its actual use of the particular tool of comedy in order to lambaste its targets in exceptionally vulgar (but not particularly original, entertaining, or funny) ways. The show's consistently weak writing often consists of little more than recording Bush/Cheney jokes heard elsewhere ad nauseam and placing them all in a single 30 minute block of television. As such, most of the jokes that presented by the writers were shameless clichés, some of which that been in public circulation for more than 6 years already. Comparing the Vice President to Darth Vader, for example, may have been funny in the first 300 times one has heard it on the Daily Show/Colbert Report/Letterman/Conan O'Brien/Leno monologue/any late-night-talk-show-ever, but it is not funny here. As if that were not enough, the show's plots seem to exist simply as a means to advance the same old, tiresome Bush jokes that the writers have made the center of the program.

In the show's defense, when the writers dare to write in a truly original joke (which seems to be a rarity) it is often somewhat humorous. If the show were to expand its depth somewhat, and place its characters into new situations, exotic situations, rather than the same old mistakes and ""quagmires"" perpetuated by the Bush administration, therefore not having to rely on the same old Bush jokes over and over again, the show might be considered somewhat tolerable, and possibly even innovative.

Ultimately, it is difficult to ascertain which shortcoming causes the Lil Bush series the most damage; its clear lack of originality and weak writing quality, or its painfully narrow minded ambitions. It is reasonable to expect that Lil Bush will be able to maintain a small base of left wing fans, that is, if they are able to endure the exceptionally poor writing; so long as the program continues to lampoon the Bush administration thoroughly. Even so, the majority of viewers will soon recognize the program for what it really is, a weak and pointlessly vulgar attempt at satire, and tune out in search of something more intellectually stimulation; The Price is Right, perhaps.",Negative "I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.

Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity.

Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.

This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.

The extra star that keeps this from being ""awful"" goes to Price and Mancini.",Negative The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.,Negative "I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell.",Negative "For those of us Baby Boomers who arrived too late on the scene to appreciate James Dean et. al., Martin Sheen showed us The Way in this great feature.

The premise is easy enough: cool hood meets small town sheriff and All-Hell ensues, but the nuts and bolts of this movie enthrall the car nut in all of us.

No, this isn't Casablanca, nor is it great Literature, but it IS a serious movie about cars, rebellion, and the genius that is Martin Sheen.

Enjoy this and appreciate it for what it is, and for what Martin will become. I loved this movie growing up as a teen in the 70's, and you will too.",Positive "As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original ""Frankenstein"" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz",Negative "Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange!",Negative "Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.

The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of ""been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past"".

The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.

By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.

So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.",Negative "This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, ""which Zapatti was which?"" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a ""huge, blockbuster"" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of ""splash"" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.

So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie!",Positive "When I saw that this movie was being shown on TV, I was really looking forward to it. I grew up in the 1980's and like everyone else who has grown up in that era, have seen every 80's teen and summer camp movie out there. So I couldn't wait to see this movie that totally spoofs that film genre. What a disappointment!! The movie was nothing but a bunch of really bad jokes and gags over and over, with hardly any plot and no substance. And the filmmakers attempts at dark humor totally failed-some of these so-called jokes didn't come across as anything but downright cruel and offensive. The only good things about this film were the wardrobe, music, and acting. It was nice to go on a nostalgia trip and see all of the summer clothing styles from the 80's, and the same goes for the music. And the acting was top-notch throughout: almost all of Hollywood's best comedians were present. Too bad they didn't have better material to work with.",Negative "I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered ""master-pieces"", but when I see ""Lili Marleen"" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for ""real art"", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis ""La Caduta degli Dei"" and tell me again that ""Lili Marleen"" is a good movie...",Negative "I often wonder why this series was slammed so much. I thought it was brilliant and also very cleverly written and performed. I think in time to come it will be seen in the light it deserves, that is if they ever issue it. Many up and coming young comedy actors appeared in this and all went on to greater things. Maybe this fact will make people aware of its value and it will have to be issued. Sally Phillips, Simon Pegg, Peter Serafinowicz and not least Julian Rhind-Tutt of the hugely successful Green Wing. The writers Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews are two of the finest comedy writers of the modern age. Anyone that can produce comedy like Father Ted couldn't be capable of writing something not worthy of publication. If it is ever issued I will certainly buy it.",Positive "Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.

But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.

Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.

In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.

The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.",Negative "This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie.",Positive "The ""Amazing Mr. Williams"" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point.",Positive "I don't watch a lot of TV, except for The Office, Weeds, Entourage and E!'s Soup. I think I hold this show in good company.

I love the scathing review of pop culture that this show gives. Soup also helps me stay on top of what people in the office are referring to when talking about a Sanjaya or Heidi Montag (sp?).

The best part is that Soup shows clips of the highlights of these shows, which are usually the funniest or most controversial moments (c'mon, most people get hooked into watching American Idol because of the freak show that are the auditions), which is why most people claim to watch. And that means, I don't have to suffer through the other 98% of these mind numbing talk shows or ""reality"" shows, for one nugget of ""funny"" or ""shock."" The only reason why Soup doesn't get a 10 in my opinion are sometime the sketches are not that funny, and on an even rarer occasion, the commentary isn't always up to par. But they can't all be home runs either, if so, Soup wouldn't be on E!.

Joel's quick wit and Soup's writing team (which includes McHale) make for a great show. I happen to enjoy the laughing and comments from the crew who are off-camera. Even when they're being blatantly obvious by giving occasional courtesy laughs, it's hilarious because it IS forced. They're obviously being ironic. And that's part of what makes this show funny.",Positive "As an employee of the Swedish Air Force I enjoyed the nice Gripen and Hkp 9 (MBB Bo 105) flight scenes in this movie. One of the few disappointments was the EWS 39 jammer pod, in this case an inert Rb 75 (Maverick) missile painted black with the letters ""EWS 39"" in white along the side. Real jammer pods definitely do not look like that, at least not the ones I've seen.

But apart from that, it's an entertaining movie with a very amusing ending (the last minute). Anyone interested in seeing various Swedish military units, including the now-legendary SSG, on film should see this one.

",Positive "Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.

With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.

A great discourse.",Positive "I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'

I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.

An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.

It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.

Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.",Negative "When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with ""The Wedding Banquet"" and ""Eat Drink Man Woman"" a few years ago and then moved on to ""Sense and Sensibility"" and ""The Ice Storm"". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.

This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called ""bushwhackers"", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.

The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider ""Jewel"" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.

Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.

Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.

Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the ""southern gentleman"" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.

While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's ""great"" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.

Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.

",Positive "This movie is very underrated. It's highly imaginative, creative and clever. It's just plain fun and in my opinion this film tops the first one. But the film was forgotten when it first came out, and became even more overlooked as the years passed. ""Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey"" also bombed at the box office, whereas the first one was a pretty good hit and very popular.

I think the problem may be that this film was just released a couple years too late. In 1991, Bill and Ted already seemed ""so '80s"". Even though the '80s were only a couple years ago back at that time, the landscape of the music and style for kids had changed so radically with gangsta rap, hip hop, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, grunge and the Seattle sound. Bill and Ted with their Ozzy Osbourne, Van Halen and Guns N' Roses music along with their '80s style seemed so out of place and very outdated in '91, and I think that's one BIG reason the film bombed at the box office. Nobody but surfers were still saying stuff like ""excellent!"" and ""bogus!"" in 1991. ""Gremlins 2"" which also came out in the early '90s suffered a similar fate of being a good film that bombed at the box office because it was too associated with the '80s. The transition from the '80s to the '90s was a much faster change then now with the '90s and '00s. 1991 was nothing like 1988 or 1989, whereas right now, 2002 and last year 2001 still looks/looked like 1995 or 1996.

If only ""Excellent Adventure"" which was made in 1988, was released THAT YEAR instead of 1989, and ""Bogus Journey"" was made quickly and released in 1989, then it too would have probably been just as wildly received as the first.",Positive "I must admit I am a big fan of South Park and was expecting Basketball to be funny but nowhere near as good as it turned out to be! I think this is what happens when you mix David Zucker, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker together. This movie has so much replay value and at no point bothers to take itself seriously. The slap stick style humor mixed with Stone and Parker just works flawlessly. The kind of humor present in Basketball was not popular upon the time of it's release and had it come out today it would be a hit. Don't bother trying to be critical, just leave your brain at the door and expect endless laughs to come. Recommended to anyone with a good sense of humor.",Positive "This is a cartoon series where most of the action takes place in the human body where the actors are vitamins, viruses, blood cells etc. I will not try to explain it in more details, you will simply have to see it for yourself: You will not be disappointed.

I remember watching this as a kid in the 80s (with Swedish voices). I have talked with a few people who were also children in the 80s and they loved it also! I must admit that the education-part of the episodes didn't get through to me at a conscious level but the whole idea of educating children while they have fun is wonderful. I have recently seen a few episodes; there is a humour and heart in it that is hard to find in other children programs nowadays.

5/5",Positive """Deliverance"" is a dead-on example of what wonderful movies came out of the '70s. While your jaw is dropped during a ""Terminator"" movie, are you really sacred? I don't think so, because you are there to see what new CGIs have been strung together - plot matters not.

So many daily situations can become terrifying for no reason at all, because there are so many people involved in daily living - like a trip to the market.....or a walk down a dimly-lighted street. ""Deliverance"" is SO frightening, because those innocent actions can turn deadly in a heart-beat. Venturing into the backwoods is a frolic in fun? Anyone who has that notion does not read the papers, watch the daily news, nor has not seen some of the other movies that depict the seriousness of ""trespassing"" into territories where outsiders are not welcome. It is almost unbelievable that the advance dish on ""Deliverance"" didn't inform almost everyone going to view it this was no picnic, and ""squeal like a pig"" wasn't a part of ""Deulling Banjos"".

I hate the term ""hillbillies"", because - as some ""users"" wrote - that demeans entire regions of people who are very content to live as they know how - without the interference of modern life. Much is made of ""inbred"" - that is not sexuality peculiar to the backwoods. ""Chinatown"" should teach us that lesson. However, city-slickers are extremely dumb to enter a closed society and give them attitude. I know lots of ""hillbillies"" - they are moral people, when left to themselves. Their ""justice"" can be brutal when they feel threatened or humiliated, just like the ""justice"" in city streets. They don't need any part of the city - the city should take its canoe-ing and camping to legal sites.

""Deliverance"" was the last film I found Jon Voight to do any real acting - I hope I'm wrong. He was extremely underpaid for ""Midnight Cowboy"", because he was unknown, but demonstrated that he could do that role at the drop of a hat. His acting in ""Deliverance"" was superb. It gave us a clear demonstration ordinary people can move mountains, if it's necessary - but who wants to be thought-of as ""ordinary"" today? His stifled sob at the dinner was brilliant. Wow! for Burt Reynolds !!! One must ask what led him into those other tacky films? His manliness, although misguided, in this film set the pace for the endurance necessary to make it out of the wilderness - not only in the backwoods, but the wilderness of everyday-life. Ned Beatty was stellar - his underwear may not have had ""Versace"" stitched on it, but his shell-shocked performance was perfect. As noted, he became stronger than any of the group by the end of the movie. Ronny Cox played the moral guy to the hilt - every man should have his determination to do what is right. Several ""users"" have theorized he was shot, or lost his balance when he pitched-into the river - my theory is that he was so disgusted with the whole journey, he committed suicide. No gunshot was heard during the scene and Voight and Beatty did not find a wound.

James Dicey certainly knows how to weave a suspenseful tale, and was great as the sheriff - it is said he was so terrified of acting he came to the set drunk every day. His character could see the three canoe-rs were guilty of surviving, but also knew they didn't stand a chance against a jury of the local people, no matter how kindly they were treated in ""Aintry"". He was also aware that the meaner of the locals could be cruel. Justice ? - ""don't come back up here again"". Not many ""users"" knew ""hillbillies"" were used in the film where ever it was possible - what actors could portray them better? The ""mountain-men"" WERE actually mountain-men.......

Every detail of this movie was perfect - no doubt it was dangerous to play in. Play in? Better ""fight-for-your-life"" in. I've experienced some near-dangerous incidents, and am content to live outside of the fray - you guys who feel your manhood raging can have my part.

That we have absolutely killed - and continue to do so - irreplaceable areas of this country in undeniable. To be able to view its grandeur on any media is enthralling, but it leaves a bitter taste to realize some do not care about it. Los Angeles, where I live, is a perfect example: it's built-up right into the territories for wild animals, and steadfastly believes humans come before animals. Those are their rightful habitats - we should leave them be just that. Any wonder why coyotes and bears and wolves wander into neighborhoods? They're theirs.

In some less threatening way, we all need to experience the lessons to be learned from ""Deliverance"" - to understand our advancement technologically does not lead to supremacy. I thank all those city-slickers who went out into the wilderness to produce this modern classic, so that it can scare the heck out of me when I watch it. You can have the thrill of danger - I'll stick to the TV. 30-out-of-10.",Positive "Guns blasting, buildings exploding, cars crashing, and that's just the first ten minutes.

This action-packed film involving a rogue ex-CIA mercenary who can't seem to die no matter how many times he's shot (hence the title) is pretty decent.

Tough and toothy Gary Busey, usually cast as a villain in these kinda flicks, has his usual crazy charm but is a bit more subdued: after all he's carrying the entire show. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of terrific supporting roles including William Smith, Luke Askew, Mills Watson, R.G. Armstrong, Henry Silva, Lincoln Kirkpatrick, Thalmus Rasulala, and several other ""forgotten"" character-actors.

There's enough smaller action sequences to hold up the entire story: Busey has to free a group of ""kidnapped"" American military elites and return a high-tech ""supertank"" (a normal tank with a cheesy add-on pasted to the top) back to the States.

But does America deserve this killing machine any more than the bad guys? This question is asked, of course, like in any film centering on the CIA... but without getting preachy.",Positive "Kenny Doughty as Jed Willis is sexier in this role than any male porn star, even though he keeps his pants on.

The movie tore at my heart reminding me of the intensity of the big explosive love of my life. I don't think I can think of another movie, except perhaps Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet that captures that giddy joy that well.

The other draw of the movie is the very English eccentric characters enjoying the scandal vicariously. In that sense it is much the same appeal as Midsomer Murder or a Miss Marple mystery, without the mayhem.

This is a great antidote to the mock horror currently popular in the USA an any relationships between people of different ages.",Positive "If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.",Negative "I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again!",Positive "This movie might not put the Catholic church in the best light but it is telling a story based on true events. Unfortunately not everything in life, including religion, are all nice and rosy. Sometimes people and groups do things that at the time seem like the right thing but in retrospective do not look as great as they once did. ""A Love Divided"" tells the story of a family, yes it does incorporate religion, but really the story is about a family, and that family's ability to stay together no matter what is thrown at them. This film is also based on true events which is not to say that this story, scene by scene, is true, but if you were to look at news articles from that time period you would be able to see that neither churches handled the incident in a way that was helpful towards the family. Both churches are at fault here, the Catholic church for forcing such a regulation on the family in the first place and not responding to the violence that came with it and the Protestant church for telling the mother that she should just obey her husband and his priest and not put up a fight. In this case both let this family down. I believe that the film does a good job in showing this struggle in both the church and the family. It in no way shape or form is putting down the Catholic church, just the opposite, it shows how one incident can change the course of that religion's ideas and how one person can have an effect far more reaching then just themselves.",Positive "The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.

I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.

Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do?",Positive "I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.

I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.

One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.

A true gem.",Positive Never see this movie.

It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.

It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.

Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.,Negative "Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved – this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up –- is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.

The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button – a lot.",Negative "This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call ""The Scottish Play,"" as a reference to the word ""Macbeth"" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known ""pretty face"" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well.",Positive "CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s

In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy",Negative "What a fun movie St. Ives is. It reminds me of the type of film made during the 40's. Classic story, rounded off by characters and a plot that is neither over dramatic nor overtly complicated. In fact it isn't over anything. Robert Lewis Stevenson's story - here adapted for the screen - reads like Jane Austen for men. We do get a tale that has a romance at its heart, but there is plenty of fun too: battle scenes (sort of), prison escapes, mistaken identities, swordplay, and the funniest line I've heard in years: ""Only in Scotland would guests be announced by name at a masked ball."" There is much hilarity, hardship, and not a little heartbreak as St. Ives tries to fight and find his way back to a family and life he barely knew.

The cast is absolutely stellar with the too infrequently seen Jean Marc Barr absolutely perfect in the title role. Anna Friel is a refreshing delight as the resourceful Flora and Miranda Richardson nearly walks away with the movie as her wise and worldly, been there and seen-it-all Aunt Susan. Richard Grant provides comic relief of the highest order.

This is not going to be the greatest movie anyone has ever seen, but its charms are undeniable and the entire film fairly bristles with an energy that bursts with life.",Positive "This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.

Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.

This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language.",Negative "For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and ""film-making"". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.

Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.

Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.",Negative "As a person who sought out an existence as a 'professional' person with income backed by a BS in Chemistry and MS in Business Management, my sanity was always spasmodically sustained in outside indulgences in things more artistic. My post-post graduate classes were always emotionally and spiritually supported by an interest in photography, stained-glass, ceramics, metal forging/welding, and art drawing that also included silk screening.

I also keep healthy with jogging, walking and lately, hiking to remote destinations in California and nearby states like Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Jogging, walking and hiking gets one close to the earth with time to stop and watch and listen and also photograph or record sounds.

Within that background, I was obsessed with RIVERS AND TIDES. I was equally impressed with the documentary content of artist Andy Goldsworthy as well as the skills and smoothness of Director/Cinematographer Thomas Riedelsheimer. I actually could not separate the art of Goldsworthy with camera path of Riedelsheimer.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful.",Positive "For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.

Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.

Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!

One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,""Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?"",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,""Enos,is this a good movie?"",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,""No, not really.""As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!",Negative "#1 Vampires vs. Humans

#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.

#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the ""good guys"".

#4 Plenty of gore and action.

There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...

#5 In outer space.

That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).",Negative "Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.

Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:

""That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?""

The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that ""it didn't work."" He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,

""But Sidney, we want to stop it too.""

Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.

Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.

Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:

""Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you.""

I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got ""a shot in the arm of hope."" (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says ""it's more than I'd hoped for...""

",Positive "A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.

This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.

My Grade: D",Negative "Monika Mitchell's showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. I wouldn't say blood-soaked; but there is insult and injury. Max Matteo(John Cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen, but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. There is always a producer's nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. Well, the best thing to do is get rid of the competition...Max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. The rewarding career is just a swing, push and shot away. Other cast members: Rene Rivera, Molly Parker, Jennifer Beals, Frank Cassini and cameos by Eric Roberts and Sandra Oh. Well, that's show business...or is it?",Negative "I liked Antz, but loved ""A Bug's Life"". The animation that was put into this paid off. I will definitely be getting this on DVD. By the way, Disney should make a widescreen version of this movie on tape. (I heard talk of squishing all of the characters into the screen on the standard video format). Most will have to agree that the ending credits were the funniest! I only saw one of the two sets, but I can't wat to see the other one!",Positive "This infamous ending to Koen Wauters' career came to my attention through the 'Night of Bad Taste'. Judging by the comment index i wasn't the first and i am not to be the last person in Western Europe to learn that this musician (undoubtedly one of the best on our contemporary pop scene, even the Dutch agree on that) tried to be an actor. Whether he should have made the attempt or not cannot be judged.

In 'Intensive Care' he's quite likable, but he seems to be uncomfortable with the flick in which he is participating. No one can blame him. It deserves its ranking in Verheyen's Hall of Fame by all means & standards. The story of the Murderous Maniac Who is Supposed To Have Died In An Accident But Is Alive And Wrathful has been told dozens of times before, and even without original twists a director can deliver a more than mediocre story through innovative settings and cinematography.

IC contents itself with a hospital wing and a couple of middle class houses. The pace is dull. The tension looses the last bit of its credibility to the musical score, for every appearance of the murderer is accompagnied by a tedious menacing melody, followed by orchestral outbursts during the murders, which or largely suggested and in any case as bloodless as a small budget can make them. The sex scene is gratuitous but not in the least appealing. The couple from Amsterdamned could have made it work, though. While dealing with the couple subject : the whole subplot between Wauters and the girl does not work. A more effective emotional connection could have been established on screen if they had just been fellow victims-to-be, who loosen their nerves halfway through physical intercourse. I will not even grant the other cast members the dignity of a mentioning, for they should all have been chopped up into tiny greasy pieces. As a matter of fact, most of them do. The ones i recall where obvious for the genre : a pretty nurse and two cops.

Hence, in a slasher, the cavalry only comes in time to need rescue itself. The (anti-) hero has to take out the villain, mostly through clever thinking, for former red berets don't often get parts in these films; they might overcome the illusion of invincibility that surrounds the killer. Translated to the events, Wauters kills the doctor and saves the dame in distress.

No people, i am not finished. This is not how the story goes. Wauters makes his heroic attempt but gets beaten up with a fury that comes close to ""A Clockwork Orange"", so it is up to the girl to pick up the driller killer act and pierce through the doctors brains. Though this method ensures the killer's death more than the usual rounds of 9mm bullets, the doctor survives in order to enable IC to reach the 80 min mark.

I should have made my point by now. Intensive Care is a bad movie, which can only be enjoyed by Bad Taste lovers, who can verify Verheyen's catchy statements and make some up for themselves and that way try to sit through it. For example, the (unintended) parody value of the doctor's clown mask (Halloween) and the final confrontation in the park (the chase at the end of Friday the 13th).

However, let me conclude by giving an overview by a few measly elements which give IC a little credit. George Kennedy is not one of them. All he has to do is endure a horrible monologue by a fellow doctor/French actor and look horrified when they let him go down in flames in order to tag his big name on a stand-in. He could have played his Naked Gun part again, to end up as beef, but with a longer screen time. The finale may be one of them. I had never seen a maniac being brought down by launching fireworks into his guts in order to crush him against a flexible fence. It is good for a laugh.

Name one good truly point about Intensive Care ... Koen Wauters learned his lesson and devoted himself entirely to his musical career. It makes me wonder how many editions of the Paris-Dakar race he has to abort before coming to his senses.

",Negative "There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This ""dramatic scene"" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either.

Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.

The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question ""why did they even choose to make this in the first place?"". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.",Negative "Let's see, here are the ""highlights"" of The Brain Machine: 15 establishing shots of a pool and a house; 15 establishing shots of a nondescript office building; 5 countdowns by a bland technician; 7 close-ups of a menacing guard; and a myriad of technical babble to show us this is a high-tech experiment.

Various posters have commented on the discrepancy between the copyright date of 1972 and the release date given on the DVD box of 1977. That's an easy one to explain. This dog simply sat on the shelf unreleased for five years, until someone dusted it off, thinking it fit in perfectly with the post-Watergate mood of distrust in government. After seeing The Brain Machine now, my only wonder is that it ever got released at all!",Negative "The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.",Negative "This film is one of the few quality films of 2000 and definitely one of my best. The scenario is based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov and the transfer to the big screen is absolutely brilliant.

The photography of the film is excellent as is the acting of both Turturro and Watson. Turturro definitely gives his best performance to date proving he's worth much more than what we thought. Watson also performs brilliantly.

The story is about a phenomenal chess player (Turturro) which is also extremely eccentric in his everyday life. The film is presented in a non linear time, with multiple flashbacks of Luzhin's childhood. Through those, the complex character of Luzhin is described.

I have nothing more to say, but to suggest this film to anyone.",Positive "With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.",Negative "With Adam Sandler.

This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.

86 mins. rated R for Language.",Negative "It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this ""movie."" No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.

The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.

**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream??

**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.

(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).

**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.

**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.

**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.

**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?",Negative "The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.",Negative "A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.",Positive "When George C. Scott played the title role in ""Patton,"" you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist, shooting at German dive bombers with a revolver, and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. The most action we get from Gregory Peck as ""MacArthur,"" a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment, is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his.

Comparing Peck's performance with Scott's may be unfair. Yet the fact ""MacArthur"" was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels, as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at West Point. It's clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that Oscar-winning film of a few years before. But while Peck looks the part more than Scott ever did, he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a Wikipedia walkthrough of MacArthur's later career.

""To this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived,"" an opening title crawl tells us. It's a typical dishwater bit of post-Vietnam sophistry about those who led America's military, very much of its time, but what we get here is neither view. MacArthur as presented here doesn't anger or inspire the way he did in life.

Director Joseph Sargent, who went on to helm the famous turkey ""Jaws The Revenge,"" does a paint-by-numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the Chinese attack U.S. forces in Korea), while the script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins trots out a MacArthur who comes across as good-natured to the point of blandness, a bit too caught up in his public image, but never less than decent.

Here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the Phillipines. There you see him addressing Congress in his ""Old Soldiers Never Die"" speech. For a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in Toyko, waiting for the North Koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details Japan's rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. Peck's co-actors, Marj Dusay as his devoted wife (""you're my finest soldier"") and Nicolas Coaster as a loyal aide, burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion's magnificence but garner no interest on their own.

Even when he argues with others, Peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. When Admiral Nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the Philippines, a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for MacArthur, MacArthur comes back with the comment: ""Just now, as I listened to his plan, I thought I saw our flag going down."" Doubtless the real Nimitz would have had something to say about that, but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of President Roosevelt.

The only person in the movie who MacArthur seriously disagrees with is Harry S Truman, who Ed Flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble Toucan Sam. Truman's firing of MacArthur should be a dramatic high point, but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation, in which Peck plays MacArthur as nothing less than a genial martyr.

I've never been sold by Peck's standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars; he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best-known roles. But it's unfair to dock him so much here, as he gets little help defining MacArthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. Except for two scenes, one where he rails against the surrender of the Philippines (""He struck Old Glory and ran up a bedsheet!"") and another where he has a mini-breakdown while awaiting the U.S. invasion of Inchon, inveighing against Communists undermining him at the White House, Peck really plays Peck here, not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet ""American Caesar."" The real MacArthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. What you get here is less worthy of Shakespeare than Shakes the Clown.",Negative "Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.

If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. ""Scary"" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...

So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.",Negative "I am a guy, who loves guy movies... I was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. All of this happened, however, this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

The story was standard, but the portrayal of the story was terrible. The scene transitions were the worst I have ever seen. Why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger? The serpent dragon's actions itself was very poorly written... and the serpent dragon's attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie, several times the main characters should have died.

The director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times, this movie was obviously not watched after it was made, I love movies, but had to force myself to finish watching it, thank god I did not buy this, I borrowed it from a friend.

Do not buy this, do not rent it, just watch discovery channel... much more exciting.",Negative "A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on ""The Real McCoys"" TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.

I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.

The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a ""widow"" in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called ""Broadside"", about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.

Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, ""The Real McCoys"" entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it.",Positive "Bette Davis turns in a coldly amusing performance as Mildred Rogers in this 1934 film. The film seems rather dated now in 2003. It is no doubt well worth watching for film buffs and Bette Davis fans but may not have as much appeal for the average movie watcher today. It was startling for me to see how young Ms. Davis looks in this move. The actors turn in performances which are basically sound and the story is meaningful and interesting. Leslie Howard is well cast as Philip Carey, the club-footed medical student. This is a film with a strong message about whom we choose to love and why. However, ""Of Human Bondage"" didn't seem to have a strong impact on me mentally or emotionally. I felt slightly indifferent and detached about the movie after viewing it. I have an intuition that this may be the reaction that the director was going for. You be the judge!

",Positive "I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.

It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.

Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.

Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.

The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.

Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.

Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...

This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the ""nunsploitation"" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.",Positive "Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean ""house husband"" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses.

Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!

Very entertaining.",Positive "while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...

so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...",Negative "Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).

Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.

I savour ""moments"", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...

Hugely enjoyable.",Positive "STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

James Dial (Wesley Snipes) is hiding out on his ranch in Montana after failing to capture a notorious terrorist. Then he's approached by the agency again to travel to London to have another go. His target has been apprehended there and is under heavy police protection- but they don't want him merely to capture their man- they want him taken out. All goes well but then the mission gets botched and when a senior police chief, Windsor (Charles Dance) is killed, the blame falls at Dial's feet. Hunted like an animal, he takes refuge in a nearby house and befriends a young girl named Emily (Eliza Bennett) who's dealing with issues of her own and becomes his unwitting sidekick as he goes about clearing his name and working out who betrayed him.

This latest Snipes straight to DVD escapade came out of nowhere, with a minimal of publicity even for something so small time (I don't recall seeing any advertisements or trailers for it anywhere.) With this in mind and after Snipes's history of duff DVD efforts, this might have seemed like one which Snoop Dawg would tell you to drop like it's hot. But I felt compelled to give it a go anyway. It doesn't rank among his worst, but it doesn't reach any higher than the standards of some of his better ones (The Detonator, 7 Seconds, says it all, really), either.

This is, at best, mildly suspenseful, with a minimal of action, naff all in the way of cool dialogue and Snipes not exactly at his best in the lead role. Likewise, in a main supporting role, it's quite clear Dance has only showed up for the pay cheque as well and this is generally one that none of the cast are going to shout for the hills about on any of their CVs.

It says a lot that by the end the only 'contract' that's keeping you interested is when Snipes's will end with Sony and with it an end to any further sub par EL DVD action films. **",Negative "I had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like ""ambiguity"" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family ""meeting"" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.",Negative "This is a great movie for the true romantics and sports lovers alike.

Drew Barrymore is at her best in this movie. As a Drew fan it was quite nice to see her shine after having several flops. I had my doubts about Jimmy Fallon but he totally delivered as Ben the comical, sports crazed sweetheart. The comedy in this movie is great, there were several laugh out loud moments.

Their first date started rocky when he showed up at her apartment with flowers and she was sick to her stomach from eating a new place earlier in the day. Instead of leaving he helps take care of her, helping her change into pajama's then cleaning up the puke on her toilet and bathroom later telling her that she was 'very lady-like...no chunks.' Everything goes great between Ben and Lindsay the whole winter but then baseball season starts. Lindsay starts to realize just how obsessed Ben is with the Red Sox and why this seemingly great guy is still single. She tries to shrug it off and think of it as a good thing as she has a busy work schedule and she wont feel guilty for working extra hours while he is at games. She even buys all the books on The Red Sox she can find including one on 'The curse of Bambino'.

Everything is going pretty well until Lindsay has a false alarm having missed her period. It both makes them both realize how serious they are getting and she begins to question if this is the person she wants to be with. A very touching part in the movie is after she tells him she got her period it shows him sadly putting away a baby sized Red Sox jersey he had bought just in case she was pregnant.

Eventually Ben tries to show her how important she is and decides to go to her friends birthday Party after she said ""I had to check my calender and when I saw the there was a Red Sox/Yankee game I knew I would be going stag'. After the party Ben tells her it was 'the best night of his life'. Shortly after he gets a call from his pal who went to the game he gave up for the party and told him ""IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER!!!"" Ben freaks out about missing it and ends up really hurting Lindsay when she says ""A few minutes ago you were saying this was the best night of your life"" he says ""well that was a few minutes ago.""

So they separate for a while, he realizes how immature his obsession is and decides to sell his season tickets which he inherited from his uncle because if he didn't it would 'remind him too much of what he gave up for them'. Lindsay finds out through a friend and decides to stop him realizing he is doing it for her. It ends very sweetly showing how his childhood love for baseball has been over shadowed for a whole new deeper love, Lindsay. They still go to the games and even attend the final World Series game and St. Louis and it is a happy ending all around. 2 thumbs up!!",Positive "This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a ""cop"" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.

All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks.",Negative "Some people loved ""The Aristocrats"" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the ""f"" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.",Positive "I saw this film for the very first time several years ago - and was hooked up in an instant. It is great and much better than J. F. K. cause you always have to think 'Can it happen to me? Can I become a murderer?' You cannot turn of the TV or your VCR without thinking about the plot and the end, which you should'nt miss under any circumstances.",Positive "Not only did they get the characters all wrong, not only do the voices suck, not only do the writers seriously need to get girlfriends, not only are the drawings really crude, but it seems like it was mainly created for ages 1-6. The only episode I've ever seen of this show that kept me watching, was ""A Mattter Of Family"", because I liked the Robin character. And sometimes I think it's just a general copy of Batman The Animated Series. Example: In BTAS, Bruce is friends with Harvey Dent, yeah? Over a two episode story, he transforms into the unlikely villain, TwoFace. In the ""Show"" Bruce is Friends with that Ethan guy, and over a two episode story, he Transforms into the unlikely villain ClayFace. That was just a small example (That may not even be true), but in short, this is the WORST attempt on a Batman series. And That's saying something.",Negative "This is a fan-made short film that pretends to be a preview for a new movie that pairs Batman and Superman! It's the sort of film that fans adore and watch at places like ComicCon and was made by the same person who made BATMAN: DEAD END, Sandy Collora.

As far as this film goes, I could easily pick it apart. Sure the CGI effects aren't perfect and the costumes are far from perfect. BUT, this was made on a shoestring budget and for a fan film this is incredible. I was particularly impressed by the very buff Superman--he was no wimpy little guy! If only this were a preview for a real film--they'd have fans lined up from here to Omaha to see it. Great job.",Positive "If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.",Negative "The movie was ""OK"". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a ""cute"" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster.",Negative "This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.",Negative "Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three ""couples"" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being ""harmlessly"" stalked by a gay man.

The ""het"" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.

The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.

The more interesting pair of the characters is the ""stalker couple."" Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.

I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.

He seems to have something to say.",Negative "Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.

Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.

What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.

A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well.",Negative "I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.",Positive "Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV ""Columbo"" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.",Negative "in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...",Positive "As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.",Negative "Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).",Positive "Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like ""We have to nurture them, just like a baby"". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!

Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.

Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!",Negative "As I watched one of Orson Welles' last contributions to Hollywood as a filmmaker, I knew I was watching a great movie unfold, though at times I did not know why. The story in The Lady from Shanghai has the prime elements of a film-noir: average-Joe lead, femme fatale, conspicuous supporting characters, and a comprehensible if somewhat convoluted plot structure. It is an entertaining ride, and it's filled to the brim with Welles' unique gifts as a director, but there are scenes that tend to just not work, or don't feel complete in what was Welles' full vision (the latter is unfortunately too true- executive producer Harry Cohn and the Columbia execs are to blame for that).

Welles co-stars with his then wife, the profoundly gorgeous Rita Hayworth, as Mike O'Hara, an Irish worker who can and does get angry at the right people. Hayworth is Mrs. Bannister, married to Mr. Bannister (Everett Sloane, who played Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane), who is accompanied by a friend Mr. Grisby (Glenn Anders, who has great control in his eyes). They want to go sailing on their yacht and take O'Hara along for the ride, and at first he's reluctant, but agrees since he's falling for the married Mrs. As their journey unfolds, O'Hara finds that Bannister and Grisby are not pleasant to be around, and more so with Grisby, who at first seems out of his gourd. Yet as the plot unfolds, O'Hara is drawn into a scam that Grisby is planning for insurance money, with results that I dare not reveal (although they have been discussed over and over by others).

Whatever liabilities pop up here and there in the mystery part of the story (and those few noticeable moments where shots were studio dictated), the performances and the look of the film are what remains striking after over fifty-five years. Though he doesn't have the terrific Greg Tolland (Kane's DP) at his side, dependable Charles Lawton Jr. assists Welles in creating an atmosphere that is both elegant and stark, covered in shadows, deep focus, low angles, the works. A particular accomplishment is the fun-house mirror scene, which is merely a highlight among others. Welles himself is always dependable as an actor- even if his accent isn't anything special- and Hayworth herself makes a scene a little more lush, despite her path in the story.

The Lady from Shanghai is worth checking out, especially for Welles, Hayworth, or film-noir buffs (fans of the Coen brothers might find this fascinating as well). It may just take a little while, repeat viewings (as was for Touch of Evil), for the underlying motives in the plot to sink in.",Positive """Hundstage"" is seidl's first fiction film (before this he directed great documentaries as ""animal love"" or ""models""). seidl worked on this project for more than 3 years but it only cost around 2 million dollars. the actors are very good especially the non-professional actors who nearly played themselves.the cinematography is good too. the whole film is shocking disturbing and some scenes may be too much for ""ordinary"" viewers.the film shows a lot of sex and violence but also that people are lonely and not able to communicate with each other. finally i've to say that this is one of the best and most rewarding austrian films in the past years. please excuse my bad english.

",Positive "Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as ""Power Rangers"" and you have this film from 1990, ""Robot Jox"". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.",Negative "Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.

And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?

As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.

I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.

Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.

",Negative I read some previous comments stating that this movie loses steam towards the end of the movie and also that it has a similar ending to Cape Fear. I completely disagree. I'm going to give a simple review for the normal moviegoers out there. I thought the casting was perfect. I thought this was one of Ed Harris's best performances. What an evil psychopath!!! I have a lot of respect for his acting after viewing his performance in this movie. I was riveted throughout this movie. If you like mystery thrillers then this definitely a movie you want to see. I also noticed a young Scarlett Johannson in this movie. This movie is filled with top stars and I highly recommend it!,Positive "I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.",Positive "Former brat pack actor and all round pretty boy Rob Lowe stars in a film set in a high security American prison . I had a gut feeling his character was going to be popular for all the wrong reasons like Tobias in the first series of OZ , but PROXIMITY isn`t that kind of film , it`s more like a "" Man on the run "" film like THE FUGITIVE . It also makes a nod to the themes of punishment and justice with James Coburn putting in a cameo as the spokesman for a justice for victims pressure group but any intelligent discussion on how society should treat criminals is completely ignored as the film degenerates into tired old cliches of shoot outs and car chases",Negative "This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!",Negative "I had to endure teen-aged, high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. I really do not care about high-school girls fretting about their relationships. I've spent my time in Hell dealing with such issues and I care nothing about fictional teenies going through ""lite"" versions of the horrors I endured. I want science fiction. That's the only reason I'm here. There were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. We FINALLY see a proto-Cylon. It was good but with one problem. Its red eye-dot would lock onto an object of interest. We all know that Cylon eyedots always scan back and forth, giving the machine a map of the world. The red eye-dot does not ever stop moving back and forth.

I really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode.",Negative "This film should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding ""fake applause"" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time.",Negative "There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.",Negative "Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New ""IT"" girl Rachel McAdams (""Wedding Crashers"" and ""The Notebook"") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven (""Scream"" movies and ""A Nightmare on Elm Street""). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.

What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in ""Batman Begins"") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.

As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale.",Positive "I watched the Canadian videotape of this movie as ""The Witching"" which somehow made its way to New York State. Audio was quite bad, I had to raise it to about 7/8 just to hear it and the soundtrack often was overwhelming the dialog. Orson Welles was a mumbler, worse than usual, and some of his dialog and of others was run through an echo chamber. A ghostly figure who keeps reappearing had her voice distorted. Some closed captions would really have helped!

A group of witches or satanists (the end credits say the group was not meant to represent any real group!) have a ritual in which they get naked and cause a miscarriage by stabbing a doll. The woman who had the miscarriage and her husband move to a town named ""Lilith,"" where he's been offered a job at a toy factory. Despite one of the AKAs of this movie apparently being ""The Toy Factory,"" we never see it, and it's only occasionally referred to at all.

On the way to Lilith, her husband gets impatient with some of her questions about what his new boss Mr. Cato wanted to know about their religious persuasion. He drives aggressively, and causes another car to go off the road and blow up. After the police arrive, she takes a doll that fell out of the car, the second of many handmade dolls in the movie.

It turns out Mr. Cato and all the townspeople are witches, and that they are the ones who caused her miscarriage, though she doesn't realize it. They want her because she has an innate talent for necromancy, of which she was not really aware.

Some images in the movie have some impact, but on the whole the movie is not very involving. The movie does seem a bit of a mess, and this is no doubt largely due to its re- editing and the addition of new footage. The original version, according to the end credits, was called Necromancy - A Life for a Life. The magic of DVD could let us see both versions on one disc, but re-releasing this movie probably isn't a priority.",Negative "Artimisia was on late last night. At first I didn't think I would like it, but seeing I didn't feel like sleeping yet and nothing else being on, I continued watching and felt myself intrigued by the young Artimisia, a virgin, pure and passionate. Her romance with the older Tassi envoked recognisable feelings. Even though the film is based on a very romantisised level and not reality, I loved it a lot more than the usual biographys or costume drama's. Great play, great camerashots, great music and texts. I loved it and I want more of it! :-)",Positive "Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time.

But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: ""spiritual lovers"" are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery.

Operator and director are great, but weird.

Did not enjoy it at all.",Negative "Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more ""vocally correct"" version of ""Stay With Me"" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time.",Positive "When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying ""Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!"" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even ""Nutty Professor II: The Klumps"" or ""Flash Gordon"". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying ""oh, but its too look like a comic book"", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God.",Negative "Wow! Stacy Peralta has followed up Dogtown and Z-Boys with an equally stunning documentary about the history of the big-wave surfing culture in America. Piecing together insider archival footage along with interviews from surfing legends, we are transported into the daring and free-spirited life of the early pioneers whose sheer passion for the sport spawned an industry that today touches the lives of millions.

It's getting to know these icons and their stories that gives the film its warmth. You can feel the respect Peralta has for this group as we hear accounts of Greg Noll striding from a pack of awestruck fellow surfers on the beach to singularly challenge 50-foot swells off Hawaii's North Coast. Or Jeff Clark, surfing the outrageously dangerous Maverick off the northern California coast all alone for 15 years before it was discovered and became the surfing destination in California. And the storybook history of Laird Hamilton, today's surfing icon. Hearing Greg Noll reverently refer to Hamilton as the best surfer ever sent chills up my spine.

(As an aside, Noll, Clark and others were at the Sundance screenings. Noll humbly described himself as an old, over-the-hill surfer. He was deeply moved by the audience reception of him and film. Both he and Clark were as likable in person as they were in the film.)

Riding Giants pays homage to these extraordinary athletes while at the same time rewarding us with an insight into the magnitude and terrifying power of the waves they seek to conquer, the gut-wrenching vertical drops required to get into them, and the almost unfathomable combination of adrenaline and fear that the surfers experience each time they take on a monster swell.

All this, and the movie has more. For those of us that didn't live in California in the 60's, we get an insight into the impact of surfing on American pop culture. (And, to my surprise, the impact of the movie Gidget on surfing!) Peralta also weaves in a primer on some of the technical aspects of the sport and the history of innovation in equipment. I'm not a surfer, but like the rest of the Sundance audience, I was absolutely captivated by this film. Peralta is staking his claim as the Big Kahuna of American documentaries.",Positive "The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.

I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.

The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.

I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.",Negative "Oh My God! Please, for the love of all that is holy, Do Not Watch This Movie! It it 82 minutes of my life I will never get back. Sure, I could have stopped watching half way through. But I thought it might get better. It Didn't. Anyone who actually enjoyed this movie is one seriously sick and twisted individual. No wonder us Australians/New Zealanders have a terrible reputation when it comes to making movies. Everything about this movie is horrible, from the acting to the editing. I don't even normally write reviews on here, but in this case I'll make an exception. I only wish someone had of warned me before I hired this catastrophe",Negative "Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.

The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!

All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.",Negative "If you like ""Othello,"" you'll love this flick since half the movie revolves around the stage production of the play.

The film has a great cast with Signe Hasso and Shelley Winters as the women in Colman's life while Edmond O'Brien plays the enterprising press agent.

A couple of the supporting players I particularly liked were Millard Mitchell as the grizzled reporter who finds an angle and Joe Sawyer, the 1940's answer to Drew Carey, who plays the cop on the case.

Great raw moments in this one with noir realism throughout.",Positive "Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.",Negative "I saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird!",Positive "Alexandr ""Sascha"" Luzhin (John Turturro) is a former leading chess player attempting a comeback at an Italy-hosted tournament. His brilliance is unquestioned but his obsession with chess has stunted his growth in all other aspects of his life. Natalia (Emily Watson) is a beautiful heiress who has come to the same resort with her mother, Vera (Geraldine James) to scope out possible marriage partners. Vera leans toward a handsome count but, astonishingly, Natalia is more fascinated by Sascha, whom she met on a walk. Sascha, too, is taken with Natalia and proposes marriage at their second meeting. But, with the concentration that Sascha must give to the chess matches and, with other happenings in his past still causing problems, will he win the heart of Natalia? Oh, and can he become the chess champion, also? This is a lovely film, based on a novel by Nabokov. The acting is amazing, with Watson very fine as the beautiful little rich girl and Turturro utter perfection as the shy, awkward chess enthusiast. James gives quite a nice turn as the overbearing mother and the other cast members are wonderful as well. As for the look of the film, it could not be better. The scenery is of the put-your-eye-out variety, the vintage costumes are gorgeous and the cinematography is deserving of much applause. Yes, the story is unusual and told with the use of flashbacks, at times, making it a film not everyone will appreciate. Then, too, the ending is bittersweet. However, if you love romance, period pieces, great acting, knockout scenery, or the fine art of motion picture creation, don't miss this one. You will be defenseless in resisting its multitude of charms.",Positive "I stopped short of giving ""Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House"" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.",Positive "What's wrong with this film? Many, many things. The editing tries too hard to look good, and does nothing but confuse the viewer whilst also supplying him/her with a powerful headache. The plot is muddled and obviously prolonged from what started as a short (story or film). The plot only makes for less than ten minutes of good story, and this is just stretched out painfully until it reached the minimum length for a feature film. We all know what happens to things when we stretch them, right? Exactly. They get thinner. In the end, the plot is just so paper-thin that you might even miss it, if you aren't paying attention, which is hard to do when watching this movie. The acting is not even slightly impressive. The characters are poorly written and dull, uninteresting. One of the worst things that are wrong with this film is that apparently, whoever was in charge of the score/soundtrack had no idea what the movie was, or what it was supposed to be about(not that I blame him, I couldn't figure it out either). As a result, half of the music in the film doesn't fit the scenes at all. Also, what was with all the sexual undertones between Eliza Dushku and the main character? Naturally, this was in order to attract young males, but it was just so cheaply done. And did the first scene have anything to do with the rest of the film? On any conceivable level? At all? The two creepy guys didn't seem to have anything to do with the film at all, they were just there in order to have some chase scenes. I doubt anyone would really enjoy a film so poorly put together and such a shameless and awful Hollywood-like attempt at a somewhat interesting idea. But I digress. I recommend this to teenagers with low attention spans who don't mind a really bad horror-thriller as long as there's some sex and gore in it(although that may only be true for the Killer Cut, which I saw). 1/10",Negative "I can not quite understand why any of the ""reviewers"" gave this documentary ""0"" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both ""sides"" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!",Positive "Well made and stylish while still ultimately making sense this thriller would work better for non giallo fans to get interested in the genre than the later Argento entries which go overboard in all directions.

For fans of these crazed Italian thrillers, they will appreciate George Hilton and the turns his character takes and what he's put through. The camera-work is fresh with dashes of graphic violence and odd, but appropriate choices and a good not overblown music score as well. The less you know about the story the better to make it work.

The only thing lacking in keeping this from being a great Sergio Martino directed giallo is that the story doesn't have that extra sexual or psychological, or both element to put it over the top. It's more a routine mystery, the characters are well defined but live or die according to the plot not according to their own virtues and flaws.

The recent DVD (2005) release is beautiful looking and definitely the way to see the film, unless these ever get art house screenings which seems unlikely.",Positive "I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.

Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.

I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.",Negative "The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie.",Negative "No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: ""I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair""....""I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!""....""These people are 'animals'!"" ""These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing ""Mama Said"". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.",Negative "Superb cast, more please!

If you can catch just about anything else written by Plater (or starring these wonderful actors). For anyone who doesn't know Plater has a real feeling for jazz, my recommendation is to see the 'Beiderbecke' trilogy whenever you can.

""There's three kinds of jazz - Hot, Cool and 'What time does the tune start?'""",Positive "Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best.",Negative "I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's ""Essentials"" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.",Negative "Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1.",Negative "Angela Lansbury plays Eglantine a middle aged lady in war torn England, during the WWI. She has been studying witchcraft by mail, and has been secretly learning it in her home, she is doing well, until three children who have been separated from their parents from the last air raid, are sent to stay in Angela Lansbury's huge house. She is not happy about having them, because of her secret. They only want to go back home. The oldest boy is very hard to get along with he is a brat. The other two a boy and a girl are just inquisitive about their new place to stay and the lady that is their hostess. The kids find out about her secret and that is when the fun begins. Fun and more of it. Family fun. Laughter, frolic, adventure, something for everyone. The special effects are quite good. This is a musical the tunes are every bit as catchy to sing later as any of the other Disney films. Add this to your Family Video Library. You will not be disappointed.",Positive "Practically the only other actor who would be less likely to play Evel Knieval than Hamilton is Anthony Perkins, yet somehow Hamilton manages to turn in a reasonably effective portrayal (and as producer of the film, he wasn't likely to be fired or told he wasn't right for the part!) The early life of the daredevil motorcyclist is recounted here in multiple flashbacks. The film opens with a rather silly prologue with Hamilton in his white-leather, star-spangled gear spouting the world according to Knieval as if to say, ""Don't worry. This film is about my youth, but I'll be back in my familiar costume by the end of the picture."" Hamilton is preparing for a huge jump, yet is still licking his wounds from the previous one as devoted wife Lyon both supports and derides him. He recalls various vignettes of his childhood and delinquent teenage years along with his early days as a stunt rider and blossoming celebrity. This flip-flop approach is pretty abrupt and sometimes disjointed, but it does prevent the movie from sticking to one of its inexpensive sets for too long a time or from getting into a rut with the fairly pedestrian characters. Hamilton, usually a suave and debonair persona, does a very fine job of enacting the tiny details of his subject's mannerisms and demeanor including his walk. His hair is a shade lighter and longer and he works hard to give the right inflections in his speaking. (He even pays minor tribute to Knieval's many injuries by appearing in a skimpy towel while his shoulders are covered in ""scars"" from the multitudinous accidents.) Facially, he looks nothing like the real cyclist, but he does suggest him in his physical performance. Lyon is excellent at playing the young girl he loves and then the more worldly wife, though her 3-pack a day voice does threaten to give her away at any given moment. She and Hamilton strike up an easy chemistry which goes a long way in putting the film over. Other nice supporting turns are given by Freed as his jaded doctor, Cameron as an early influence and Taylor as a flea-bitten sideshow barker. The film was made on a low budget, but the story is a rather low rent one anyway, so that doesn't affect it too badly. The makers wisely used actual Butte, Montana locations to give the film a proper small town ambiance. Several of Hamilton's antics are amusing, though the character is certainly reckless and inconsiderate of other people's property! Some of the real Knieval's completed and failed stunts are included in some blurry footage, one of which features a mind-boggling ""splatter"" in which the man is rolled up and snapped around like a rag doll. Hamilton's then-wife (Stewart) appears briefly as a nurse.",Negative "I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.

Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.

I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality.",Negative "In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.",Negative "Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.",Positive "Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were.",Positive "Corny! I love it! Corny - just as the TV show was about 40 years ago! Adam and Burt rekindle the same on-screen chemistry that never seems to have left! They re-live old memories, plus the actors that play them from the 1960s show some behind-the-scenes things which are quite interesting to know. 1960s TV was corny escapism for so many of us back then, and this DVD is no exception, if you are familiar with the original TV show. The fight scene with the written Boofs and Bams or whatever is fantastic!! The movie theater scene shows clips of the villains who passed away. At the end Frank Gorshin makes an appearance. He passed away not too long after this DVD was made, I believe, so it is to his great credit that he came back to again play a villain to Adam and Burt, just as he did to Batman & Robin so many years ago. He didn't lose his touch! Thanks to Julie Newmar to re-living a villain role, also. In conclusion I think that this DVD is for great memories, and I wish to thank both Adam and Burt for coming back and recreating these memories for those of us who remember the original-!!! Thanks, Guys!!!",Positive "I loved this episode. It is so great that all 5 of them team up and stop LutherCorp and save the world. I also love this episode because Kyle Gallner (Bart Allen/Impulse) and Justin Hartley (Oliver Queen/Green Arrow) are guest starring in it!!! I just hope that Clark will join the Justice League and we'll get to follow this group of heroes across the globe!! =)It was really exciting and keeps viewers interested because of what will happen next. I think Chloe should also join the team as Watchtower, that would be such a coool thing for her to do besides the Daily Planet because she doesn't have super powers. Also, I want to find out what types of subjects Lex is going to use for 33.1, I wonder what other types of powers other people in the world have!!!",Positive "Like the great classic Bugs Bunny cartoons, this movie has humor at different levels. I just introduced this to my 10 year old daughter and 11 year old son. Both enjoyed the movie - busting out laughing quite a few times... and my daughter is not much of a sci-fi fan. The movie kept me laughing despite having seen a few times... the adult-level humor (that is, humor that adults will get simply because of greater life experiences, no baudy or R-rated stuff to be found here) keeps the movie equally enjoyable for adults. For example of the adult level humor, the Martian voices are based on characters of different movies/actors. The Martian pilot, Blaznee, has the voice and mannerisms of Jack Nicholson; the scientist, that of Peter Seller's Dr. Strangelove. The special effects are surprisingly good for this film. The lack of top 10 actors actually works in the movie's favor, and the actors/actresses play their part well - in fact I would say the producers picked out actors and their skills for the roles' needs over box-office draw power (an excellent example is Wayne Alexander's ""Vern"" character). I had to write this review... the kids are playing this for the 3rd time in 4 days over dinner right now. Good for a rainy day or a late night weekend there's-nothing-on-and-I'm-bored movie.",Positive "This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of ""Mommy Dearest."" It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God.

Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best.

The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.",Negative "The sitcom revolved around a girl who must learn to be responsible for her own actions. As she had the power of magic, she often used it to try to help her loved ones or herself, frequently resulting in literal puns that are often disastrous and always humorous.

The program began with Sabrina's adventures in high school in the fictional town of Westbridge, located near Boston, Massachusetts (as opposed to Greendale in the comics). In the series' later seasons, Sabrina graduated from high school and enrolled in college, then moved on to her attempts to live on her own and keep a job at the local newspaper. Breaking further from its comic roots, the show ended with Sabrina's wedding, although, in the end, she abandoned the wedding and ran off with Harvey.

Many episodes involve Sabrina getting to meet, through natural or supernatural means, popular real-life musical artists of the time, including Coolio, the Violent Femmes, the Backstreet Boys, Phantom Planet, Davy Jones of The Monkees, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne, Daniel Bedingfield, Hanson, Eden's Crush, Savage Garden, 'N Sync, and Ashanti. Course of Nature, the band of Melissa Joan Hart's then-boyfriend (now husband) Mark Wilkerson, appeared in an episode in 2002.",Positive "If ""The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"" is the father of all horror films (and of German expressionist cinema), this pre-WWI film is the grandfather. The titular student, starving in an empty garret, makes a deal with the Devil-- the Devil gives him a bottomless sack of gold, in exchange for ""anything in this room."" The Devil chooses the student's reflection in his mirror. He walks off with the student's doppelganger, who commits crimes for which the student is blamed.

The film is marred by some limitations arising out of the technically primitive state of 1913 filmmaking; the plot cries out for chiaroschuro effects, but the film is, of necessity, virtually all shot in shadowless daylight. But the scene where the reflection walks out of the mirror still packs a wallop.

More interesting for the trends it fortells than for its own sake, The Student of Prague is still worthwhile.",Positive "The alternate title of Ecstasy, is Symphony of Love; a title which appropriately describes the mood and feel of the film. Ecstasy is an early talkie, and could have very well been a classic film, if released during the silent film era. This film is a visual treat, and is deliberately paced so the viewer can savour its sensuous lyric quality, which is presented in an artistic low-key fashion. The director's style is distinctly European. The subject matter and approach to sexuality was far more sophisticated, than what was being produced in Hollywood, at that time. Consider the censorship code in the US, during the 30's, that pretty much sums it up. Hedy Lamarr, one of the great beauties of all time, was a perfect choice for this 'Symphony of Love.'",Positive "I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10.",Positive "1. Aliens resemble plush toys and hand puppets, while having arms that don't function.

2. Aliens mastered intergalactic space travel, but they don't know how to push an unlocked vault door open, yet can push open a door being held shut by five people.

3. Old Security Guards know how to get a hold of C4, and are just waiting for the right time to use it, say, when they are suddenly fired for no explainable reason.

4. Apparently, US Army boot camp, in the 80's, involved several sessions of ""garden tool combat"", including the pirouette spin of death.

5. To impress your prudish girl friend, you have to ""save the world...err...neighborhood"" from aliens.

6. All women are sluts, either openly or secretly.

7. Scummy night clubs look like bad diners.

8. ""Scummy"" waitresses double as dancers for The Fontanelles (how did they get talked into this?) who can only do bad 60's dance moves.

9. Army privates secretly dream of being Rambo.

10. Grenades apparently have a setting for ""flash-bang"".

11. Being burned alive apparently only leaves one with minor burns on their arms.

12. US Army Staff Sargeants apparently happen to always be in the area and do nothing about aliens in the area.

13. Aliens apparently always ""go home"", which means back to the vault they were un-locked in.

14. Aliens are attracted to bright lights, which apparently means in the Los Angeles area one would assume, the protagonist's house is the most brightly lit thing in the area.

15. Showing 16 parking scenes in a movie makes the audience clamor for more.

16. Vans from the 80's apparently have horrible suspension systems.

17. Comedy is supposed to happen in this film.

18. Horror is supposed to happen in this film.

19. Spoofs and homages are supposed to happen in this film.

20. This film cures insomnia.

21. Apparently, garden tools make electronic keyboard noises whenever they are used, not just in fights (tell me I'm not the only one who noticed this).

The simply truth is this film just came out wrong. Period. There isn't much meat on the bone, nor does it do anything really well. Even average. It's just bad. However, I've seen far worse, and the rake fight scene is pure comedy gold, intentional or otherwise.

2/10 - Jaws 4 was worse then this. At least the film never took itself seriously.",Negative "Oh, my gosh...I thought CBS primetime television shows were the

worst things Gerald McRaney appeared in...

Four people are experimented on by a crazed mind control

computer. That's it, don't rent it.

I saw this under one of its many titles- ""Grey Matter,"" and it is

perhaps one of the worst films of recent memory. The other

reviews are right, it is awful. Never have so many establishing

shots appeared onscreen, NEVER. The cast is awful, the direction

is awful, and the script is awful. I cannot stress how awful this is.

Avoid it like you would smallpox.

This is rated (PG) for physical violence, some gun violence, mild

gore, some profanity, and some adult situations",Negative "No matter how well meaning his ""message"" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.",Negative "You don't need to write a script for this trashed outrage! You just sit back and watch a pair of moonshine women and guests duke each other out before a riotous audience exposure at ""The Jerry Show""! Violent and obnoxious, this cash-in on the real Jerry Springer program reveals everything that the over-rated hyped talk show doesn't show to you on the air - - unless you have a collection of uncensored videos made by the producers of ""Cops"". Even the outside world of Springerland reveals the most amateurish acting of the decade! This goes to show you that THE GONG SHOW MOVIE had a central character in a motion picture turkey. Change the channel! REJECTED

",Negative "Had I been familiar with the stage production of Guys and Dolls before seeing the movie, I might not be as fond of it as I am. Although in all fairness, I would probably still like the film production better because of my general adoration of both Brando (for his acting) and Sinatra (for his voice, although he is quite the actor as well, see The Manchurian Candidate or From Here to Eternity.)

As for some of the other reviewers' statements about the songs, I have the Broadway soundtrack and though Isabel Bingley's voice outshines that of Jean Simmons, it is not more pleasant. I find it to have a rather shrill quality. Jean Simmons' voice is much more realistic, though admittedly, that is not always a huge concern in musicals. Also the only time I particularly noticed Marlon Brando's particularly weak vocal register was during his rendition of ""Luck Be A Lady"" and only there because I was previously familiar with Sinatra's version. I also find Vivian Blaine's voice to be much more pleasing in the movie than it is on Broadway. And Sinatra's voice alone would be able to redeem the failings of all the others, if they indeed were in need of redemption. (They weren't) It is infinitely better than Sam Levene's, particularly in my favorite song, 'Sue Me'.

Also, the complaint that lots of songs were omitted from the movie for inferior songs, I beg to differ. 'A Bushel and a Peck' is hardly a gem and the song that replaced it, 'Pet Me Poppa"" and its accompanying performance is more Hot Box material. I personally do not care for 'Marry the Man Today' at all and rejoice that it was not included in the movie. I adore 'I've Never Been In Love Before', and though it was not sung in the movie, the instrumental version can be heard when Nathan is in Adelaide's dressing room. The song 'A Woman In Love'expresses the same sentiment equally well and probably in a range that both of the stars could more capably reach. And the movie wouldn't be the same without the song 'Adelaide', not included on Broadway. In fact, if the movie soundtrack were available for sale, I'd recommend purchasing it instead of the Broadway.

Though I have not seen the original production, I cannot imagine that the acting would be superior to that of the movie's lead actors.

The important fact is that the story is as charming as ever and the acting and songs do not make it any less so.",Positive "ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film will be more easily understood if we go back to that time in life. During the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert do not represent an orgy but the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and appreciated the magnificent way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as the more accurate symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A depicts the death of the dream by these difficulties winning the game. In my point of view a film to remember.",Positive "In a poor village in Mexico, the Colonel (Fernando Luján) lives with his asthmatic wife Lola (Marisa Paredes) in an old house. Lola still grieves the death of their son Augustin some time ago. The colonel has been expecting for his pension of fighter in a war against Catholic church for almost twenty-seven years. However, for political reasons, the present government wants to forget this old fight. Without having any possession or money, but a valuable gamecock, they struggle to survival with the expectation of the acknowledgement letter from the government, recognizing the law and paying for the delayed pension. This slow and touching movie reflects the social and financial situation of most of the elder retired persons in third world countries. In Brazil, most of the retired persons has to survive with about US$ 80,00 per month. The debts of the colonel in the story were made to pay for a graveyard for his son, otherwise he would be buried as an indigent. Outstanding performance of the cast, in a very sad story that is reality in the poor countries. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): (`Não se Escreve ao Coronel') (Do not Write to the Colonel)

",Positive "This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.",Negative Star Wars: Episode 4 .

the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.

thanks Lucas,Positive "This film has a lot of raw potential. The script is sharp, the dialogue is (usually) excellent (though it could stand to lose the cheezy voice-overs), the direction and cinematography is surprisingly quite good, though some of the experimentation just doesn't work. The main problem here is David Duchovny. Once a geek-boy, always a geek-boy; and the sad, simple fact is that he's incapable of playing anything but Fox Mulder. He postures, he tries to be slick, he poses, he tries to be macho. In the end he just tries too hard. He overplays his character, he overspeaks his lines, and he's just outplayed in all ways by Timothy Hutton and Angelina Jolie, who are each in a class above him in terms of acting skill. Timothy Hutton was (as always) really good. There was a spotty moment or two where he over-dramatized his role, but you could tell he was having fun with it. He looked the part, and he became the character both physically and atmospherically. Angelina Jolie was also really good. She didn't have much of a role; in fact, I though she could have used a much stronger one...her character wasn't nearly developed enough, though she did remarkably well with what she had. And the chemistry between her and Hutton was apparent (gee, maybe that's why Uma left him...;) All in all, it was rough around the edges, but a solid effort by a good cast and great supporting roles. If David Duchovny hadn't ripped his role to pieces it would've been *that* much better. 7/10.",Positive "Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world.

Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.

However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???",Negative "Halfway through Lajos Koltai's ""Evening,"" a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: ""Can you tell me where my life went?"" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.

Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's ""Away from Her."" Hollywood might have turned ""Evening"" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.

Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of ""Mephisto,"" and director of ""Fateless"" - created a subtle ensemble work with a ""Continental feel,"" the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.

Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise ""Evening"" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.

Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.

And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of ""Evening"" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.

As with ""Away from Her,"" ""Evening"" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.",Positive "Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958.",Positive "

I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.",Negative "... so what's in those missing 10 minutes that were so horrible they had to cut them out from the original film? We were three years into the film production code... Barbara Stanwyck had starred in the original play, but here, Carole Lombard plays Maggie King. Co star Fred MacMurray is probably best known for ""Double Indemnity"", with Stanwyck, as well as his hit TV show ""My Three Sons"". Keep an eye out for a young Dorothy Lamour (Bob Hope movies) and the too-fabulous Franklin Pangborn, who spiced up just about every film put on tape. Of course, he works in the beauty salon on the ship! Add the sublime Charles Butterworth and Anthony Quinn. Good timing and clever banter at the beginning. Maggie's buddy Ella is played by Jean Dixon, who was the best friend in ""Holiday"" and ""My Man Godfrey"". In ""Swing High"", Maggie the tourist meets a soldier who is leaving the army. Maggie misses her boat when it leaves port and gets tangled up with the soldier. The dashing 20-something Quinn has a small scene at the local bar in Panama where Johnson (MacMurray) has been playing the trumpet. Maggie, Harry (Butterworth), and Skid band together and try to figure out how to get back to the States. Some good singing by Lamour. Good (but brief) acting performance by Cecil Cunningham as ""Murph"", the wise, helpful owner of the local saloon in Panama. While others have lamented at how bad it is, it wasn't so awful, and is even a little exotic, with the fake Central America locale setting for the first half of the film.",Positive "Serum starts as Eddie (Derek Phillips) is delighted to learn he has been accepted into medical school to carry on the family tradition of becoming an MD like his father Richard (Dennis O'Neill) & his uncle Eddie (David H. Hickey), however his joy could be short lived as Eddie is involved in an accident & is run over by a car. Taken to the nearest hospital it doesn't look good for poor Eddie so his uncle Eddie convinces his brother Richard to let him save Eddie with the serum he has developed, a serum which will give the recipient the power to self heal any sort of wound or illness. Desperate for his boy to live Richard agrees but the procedure has unwanted side effects like turning Eddie into a brain eating zombie which is just not a good thing...

Executive produced, written & directed by Steve Franke I'll be perfectly frank myself & say Serum is awful, Serum is one of those no budget horror films which tries to rip-off other any number of other's & ends up being slightly more fun than having you fingernails pulled out with pliers. The script is terrible, it has the whole Re-Animator (1985) feel to it with mad scientists wielding huge syringes trying to eradicate death but it's so boring it's untrue, the first forty minutes is nothing more than a really dull soap opera that amounts to nothing expect to pad the running time out with Eddie arriving home after spending some time away & finding his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with someone else, arguments with his step-mom, getting drunk with his mate & generally boring the audience stiff. So, once the tedium of the first forty minutes is over & if your still watching it it takes another twenty minutes to get Eddie re-animated & then he kills a couple of people, police catch up with him & shoot him, the end. Thank god. Serum is devoid of any of the characteristic's that one would associate with a good film, the character's suck, the dialogue is poor, it takes itself far too seriously, it's dull, it's slow, it's forgettable & considering it's meant to be a horror film there's an alarming lack of blood, gore or horror. Not recommended, did I mention Serum was boring? I thought so.

Director Franke does nothing to liven this thing up, although competent there's no style here at all. The gore levels are none existent, there's a bit of splashed blood, a bitten neck, a couple of scars on a dead woman's face, a couple of scenes where a needle pierces skin & that's it. Don't expect a Re-Animator in the gore department because if you do your going to be sorely disappointed, much like I was in fact. Filmed in what looks like one house, one restaurant & a lab the film has no variety either & just looks cheap throughout. There's a couple of scenes of nudity but that's nowhere near enough to save it.

Technically the film isn't too bad, at least it looks like proper cameras were used, I can't really comment on the special effects because there aren't any but generally speaking Serum looks reasonably professional. Apparently shot in Texas, or should that read it should have literally been shot in Texas? The acting sucks although again I think they were proper actor's rather than friends or family of the director.

Serum is a terrible film, it's dull, slow, boring, has no gore & feels like a horrible soap opera for the first forty minutes. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to watch this when they can watch Re-Animator or one of it's sequels again instead, seriously I recommend you give Serum a miss. There I've just saved you from wasting 90 minutes of your life, you can thank me later.",Negative "i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.

this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief.

even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.",Negative "wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is!",Positive "Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.

Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.",Negative "This is a really stupid movie in that typical 80s genre: action comedy. Conceptwise it resembles Rush Hour but completely lacks the action, the laughs and the chemistry between the main characters of that movie. Let it be known that I enjoy Jay Leno as a stand-up and as a talk show host, but he just cannot act. He is awful when he tries to act tough - he barely manages to keep that trademark smirk off his face while saying his one-liners which, by the way, aren't very funny. And seeing him run (even back then) is not a pleasant sight. In addition, I have a feeling that Pat Morita - at least by today's standards - doesn't give a very politically correct impression of the Japanese. Don't even get me started about the story. I give it a 2 out of 10.",Negative "One of the last great musicals of the 60s. I was 7 years old the first time I saw this movie, and it's always been a favorite since then. The musical numbers are all memorable. In the 60s the people who were cast in musicals actually had musical talent (unlike a CERTAIN Academy Award nominated current musical based in a large midwestern city). All of the main roles were beautifully cast...Ron Moody shines as Fagin, as does Shani Wallis as Nancy. Oliver Reed was a menacing Bill Sikes (who thankfully has no musical numbers, lol), and Mark Lester as Oliver and Jack Wild as the Dodger were great too. Mark Lester comes across as an innocent waif, which was what Dickens intended when he wrote the book! Then, of course there are the dozens of dancers who perform in ""consider yourself,"" ""I'd Do Anything"" ""Who Will Buy"" and ""be Back Soon,"" many who were children! This is a great show for the whole family.",Positive "I'm not a big fan of most anime, but Gundam Wing is truly something else. Gundam wing lacks all of that stereotypical melodrama that you might think of when you think of anime, since the number of jokes made over the 17 hours would only be in the double digits, Gundam Wing gets right down to business.

Gundam Wing is as much of a political thriller as it is an action series. Large parts focus on the diplomatic dealings of a war, not only the battles. Though battle animation lacks extreme detail in cases where it would just be a pain to animate, individual duels between gundams are almost pieces of art considering the animated use of complex mechanics and rapid movements.

To my knowledge, this 49 episode plus one movie series was picked up by cartoon network in 2000, and then professionally dubbed by them too. the dubbing is simply flawless. not only does every word said match up, but the voices use truly make the characters much more believable. many believe that it is best to watch anime with subs in English, but i simply don't have the determination to do that.

Not only are the voices good, but the score used over the series is quite impressive. I'll just say it left me scouring the net in vain to find a soundtrack.

The plot of this series is what will truly hook viewers, and no, not hook you like some prime time drama like Lost which was only made for the purpose of hooking you. explaining the plot deeply would lead to many spoilers, since many of the characters do not even have names until quite a few episodes into the series. The rough idea of the series is that earth and its now independent space colonies are having difficulty maintaining peace. Thus a war is started, leading to military coups and elaborate diplomatic situations. I feel that any more detail would begin to give away information, which is crucial to the plot.

I'll end here saying that this series is great for anyone that likes anime, anyone that thinks ALL anime is stupid (they have good reason to think so), and anyone looking to get into anime with a serious tone to it.",Positive "i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the""R"" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the ""R"" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the ""R"" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10",Positive "If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!

The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this.

The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.

If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike.",Positive "I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing ""bad"" turn ""good"" and ""good"" turn ""semi-bad"". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like ""I can't belive this is happening to me"" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.",Positive "I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. ""Guaranteed to offend...everyone!"" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.

So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.",Negative "I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.",Positive "Yes, it's over the top, yes it's a bit clichéd and yes, Constance Marie is a total babe and worthy of seeing again and again! The jokes and gags might get old and repetitive after a while but the show's still fun to watch. Since it's a family show the humour is toned down and the writers have incorporated family values and ideals in between the gags.

George Lopez is funny. Don't take him seriously and the show's a winner. I'm sure he didn't intend his character to be serious or a paragon of virtue. His outbursts and shouts of glee are hilarious...

I do have to say that the one big, dark, bitter spot is Benny. I hate the character...so much so that anytime she's on for more than 30 seconds I mute the TV just so I don't have to hear her. There is nothing funny about her dialogue or her jokes. As a mother she has to be the worst out there and I am just shocked and surprised that George, as the character, would stand by such a deplorable person for so long.

Even so anytime I get ticked off at seeing Benny I think to myself: seeing her is a lot better than having to watch the Bill Engvall Show. Now there's a bad sitcom...",Positive "When I rented ""Unhinged"", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.

The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.

One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading.

Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10",Negative "THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)

Number 1 - Television Show of all Time

Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.

James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.

While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.

The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.

Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.

Simply exceptional.

10/10",Positive "This is one of the better classic Edgar Wallace movies from the German series - it features all basics for a highly enjoyable Wallace crime flic movie way back from the 60ies: Although his majesty, Mr. Kinski, is missing you still have young Joachim 'Blacky' Fuchsberger, starring once again as the typical clever American 'womanizer', you have young Eddi Arendt in his best (and just as well typical) role ever - the cool, sophisticated British butler - and you have (not so young anymore) Lowitz as the melancholic yet very 'dry' ironic (and thus: highly entertaining) police investigator. Furthermore you'll get offered a freakish and very campy 'evil guy' behind a frog mask (hence the movie's title!), you'll get a crazed-out swinging soundtrack, classic b-movie action scenes, partly filmed out off the wildest perspectives (please remind the time of its origin!), yelling scream queens, and on and on... All those ingredients get shaken well up in a sweet tastin' cocktail of pure German Edgar Wallace campyness - highly recommended!!",Positive "I come to Pinjar from a completely different background than most of the other reviewers who have posted here. I'm relatively new to Bollywood films and was born and raised in the US. So I don't have a broad basis for comparing Pinjar to other Indian films. Luckily, no comparison is needed.

Pinjar stands on its own as nothing less than a masterpiece.

In one line I can tell you that Pinjar is one of the most important films to come out of any studio anywhere at any time. On a mass-appeal scale, it *could* have been the Indian equivalent of ""Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"" had it been adequately promoted in the US. This could very well have been the film that put Bollywood on the American map. The American movie-going public has a long-standing love affair with ""Gone With the Wind"", and while Pinjar doesn't borrow from that plot there are some passing similarities. Not the least of which is the whopping (by US standards) 183-minute run time.

Set against the gritty backdrop of the India-Pakistan partition in 1947-48 is a compelling human drama of a young woman imprisoned by circumstances and thrust into troubles she had no hand in creating. Put into an untenable position, she somehow manages to not only survive, but to grow -- and even flourish.

If the story is lacking in any way, it's in the exposition. Puro's (the protagonist) growth as a person would be better illustrated -- at least for western audiences unfamiliar with Indian culture -- if her character's ""back story"" were more fully developed in the early part of the film. But that would have stretched a 3-hour movie to 3 1/2 hours or perhaps even more. Because not one minute of the film is wasted, and none of what made it out of editing could really be cut for the sake of time. Better that the audience has to fill in some of what came before than to leave out any of what remains.

I could use many words to describe Pinjar: ""poignant"", ""disturbing"", ""compelling"", ""heart-wrenching"" come to mind immediately. But ""uplifting"" is perhaps as apropos as any of those. Any story that points up the indomitability of the human spirit against the worst of odds has to be considered such. And Puro's triumph -- while possibly not immediately evident to those around her -- is no less than inspirational. For strength of story alone I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Equally inspiring is Urmila Matondkar's portrayal of Puro. All too often overlooked amid the bevy of younger, newer actresses, Urmila has the unique capability to deliver a completely credible character in any role she plays. She doesn't merely act Puro's part, she breathes life into the character. Manoj Bajpai's selection as Rashid was inspired. He manages something far too few Indian film heroes can: subtlety. His command of expression and nuance is essential to the role. He brings more menace to the early part of the film with his piercing stare than all of the sword-wielding rioters combined.

If you only see one Bollywood film in your life, make it Pinjar.",Positive "Chilling, majestic piece of cinematic fright, this film combines all the great elements of an intellectual thriller, with the grand vision of a director who has the instinctual capacity to pace a moody horror flick within the realm of his filmmaking genius that includes an eye for the original shot, an ice-cold soundtrack and an overall sense of dehumanization. This movie cuts through all the typical horror movies like a red-poker through a human eye, as it allows the viewer to not only feel the violence and psychosis of its protagonist, but appreciate the seed from which the derangement stems. One of the scariest things for people to face is the unknown and this film presents its plotting with just that thought in mind. The setting is perfect, in a desolate winter hideaway. The quietness of the moment is a character in itself, as the fermenting aggressor in Jack Torrance's mind wallows in this idle time, and breeds the devil's new playground. I always felt like the presence of evil was dormant in all of our minds, with only the circumstances of the moment, and the reasons given therein, needed to wake its violent ass and pounce over its unsuspecting victims. This film is a perfect example of this very thought.

And it is within this film's subtle touches of the canvas, the clackity-clacks of the young boy's big wheel riding along the empty hallways of the hotel, the labyrinthian garden representing the mind's fine line between sane and insane, Kubrick's purposely transfixed editing inconsistencies, continuity errors and set mis-arrangements, that we discover a world guided by the righteous and tangible, but coaxed away by the powerful and unknown. I have never read the book upon which the film is based, but without that as a comparison point, I am proud to say that this is one of the most terrifying films that I have ever seen. I thought that the runtime of the film could've been cut by a little bit, but then again, I am not one of the most acclaimed directors in the history of film, so maybe I should keep my two-cent criticisms over a superb film, to myself. All in all, this movie captures your attention with its grand form and vision, ropes you in with some terror and eccentric direction, and ties you down and stabs you in the heart with its cold-eyed view of the man's mind gone overboard, creepy atmosphere and the loss of humanity.

Rating: 9/10",Positive "This movie shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?",Negative "I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.

It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.

It has its points such as the future is dirty, like ""Blade Runner"" showed ..... of course, this is no ""Blade Runner"". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.

But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad ""Andromeda"" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of ""Aliens"", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on ""Danger Island"" in the ""Banana Splits""; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in ""Andromeda"".

It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.

It's ..... ""okay"". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.

For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.",Negative "Two kinds of movies we like are (1) westerns, and (2) movies from 30 or 40 years ago. We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....

BUT... this picture is disagreeable, annoying and stupid from start to finish. Since there is nobody in the story (good or bad) to warm up to, there is nobody to motivate the necessary suspense to keep the viewer interested. No camaraderie among the guys trying to steal the gold, and no camaraderie among those trying to protect it. Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.

The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.

Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch.",Negative "This is a great movie for any fan of Hong Kong action movies. Asides from it's little plot, the weak drama and bits of comedy antics, the movie is action packed with gun-fighting and martial arts action. Kept me entertained from beginning until the end. I thought Shannon Lee was awesome in the movie.

Having an action director like Corey Yuen is what keeps Hong Kong action going strong. This modern action film is highly recommended!!",Positive "Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is ""Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers"" (I will always remember that sweet song forever).

I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years).",Positive "I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.

First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.

Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.

The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.

The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.

Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire ""film"" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.

The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.

Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.

Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.",Negative "Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.",Negative "After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.

'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.

I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.

Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.

The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.

I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.

Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.",Negative "i just watched the movie i was afraid it's gonna disappoint me. i was rather surprised at the end though. The American pie franchise is still in my favorite franchise movies of all times. yes, it won't be true if i say that i enjoyed it as mush as i enjoyed the original ones. beta house along with the previous two pies definitely lost something that the first two pies had.it is not gonna become a classic as the first two already did. but what the hell-it is still funny with a lot of good moments and i think it should be the first movie to pick if you wanna have fun and relax after a hard day at work or school. beta house deserves 6/10 but i gave it 7/10 just for being another slice of PIE.",Positive "this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.

Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain.

The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.",Negative "`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good",Positive "This is an excellent film, and is the sort of treasure that one can only catch through sporadic cinema showings, as it is unavailable on video/DVD. The way that the film begins with the two lovers arriving, and ends with them leaving (although quite a lot happens in between, and they don't stay in one place during this time), gives you a sense of closure, and a feeling that all is right with the world. If you get a chance to see this film, then do. I can't wait to see it again, and wish that it could be put on general release.",Positive "Just as Tom Berenger put you into the soul of Sgt. Barnes, he has done it again with Thomas Beckett. If I thought his world was folding in on him in the first scenes, it was nothing compared to how much more I felt during the last scenes. Great movie, even for a girl.",Positive My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap,Negative "Why on earth should you explore the mesmerizing nature documentary ""Earth""? How much time do you have on earth so I can explain this to you? OK, I will not elongate my review exploration on ""Earth"" to infinity, but I must stand my ground on why this is a ""must see"". The documentary takes a nature round trip on the migration paths on three animal families: a female polar bear and her cubs with the real life subplot of the father bear daring it out to hunt for food in his isolated path, a mama of a whale with her baby whale taking a whale of a migration tour for prey, and an elephant mama with her small (maybe not so small, they are elephants) offspring migrating in Africa. Directors Alastair Forthegill & Mark Linfield did an ""out of this earth"" job in also capturing the survival skills of many other animal species besides the magnetic shots of our three animal family protagonists. The cinematographically skilled team of Richard Brooks Burton, Mike Holding, Adam Ravetch, and Andrew Shillabeer were animales in camera shooting the wondrous nature sites and animal instinctive behaviors; not to mention, the slo-mo animal prey shots were u n b e l i e a v a b l e. ""Earth"" is also a lesson learner on the global warming effect on the animals; the papa polar bear in the doc is the poster animal boy on that consequence. So fellow earthlings, it is time to take the documentary voyage to visit ""Earth"" today! **** Good",Positive "Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.

Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.

Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.

Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.",Negative "I loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.

The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments.",Positive "After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think ""Wow this is really good!"" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10",Negative "This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- ""intended"" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?",Negative "Gary Busey is the title character, Frank ""Bulletproof"" McBain, your standard-issue reckless maverick cop who's earned his nickname because no matter how many bullets he takes (38 and counting), he never stops going after the bad guys.

When a cutting-edge U.S. tank dubbed ""Thunderblast"" is driven across the border into Mexico, it's nabbed by revolutionaries / terrorists led by General Brogado (Rene Enriquez) and Libyan Colonel Kartiff (Henry Silva), who's aligned himself with Russian villains. The Army personnel involved are kept as prisoners, chief among them Devon Shepard (Darlanne Fluegel), who happens to be McBain's ex-girlfriend. McBain is then recruited by the Army for a rescue mission.

Busey may not have the physical presence of say, someone like Schwarzenegger, who would have been another appropriate lead for a film of this type, but he's a blast as a self- confident dude who's quick with the wisecracks. Fluegel is a great female lead; she not only looks incredibly sexy but makes for a fine butt-kicking action babe. Enriquez, Silva, Juan Fernandez, and the always welcome William Smith (as a Russian major) are loathsome scum in the classic action movie tradition. The supporting cast is quite full of familiar and reliable character actors: L.Q. Jones, R.G. Armstrong, Thalmus Rasulala, Lincoln Kilpatrick, Mills Watson, Luke Askew, Danny Trejo, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa.

T.L. Lankford and B.J. Goldman supply the script, based on a story by Lankford and veteran B director Fred Olen Ray. It's the kind of script where you just know the writers have their tongues in their cheeks: they know their material is absurd and cheesy, and just have fun throwing credibility out the window. Veteran action director Steve Carver keeps it moving and delivers a respectable amount of gunfire, explosions, and general all-out mayhem.

""Bulletproof"" is good fun for the action fan who doesn't mind switching off their brain now and then and just enjoying a generous assortment of violence and humor.

7/10",Positive Oh my gosh i live in Kentucky and when Mellisa Joan hart came to Louisville she went right through my neighborhood and waved at me i am filthy rich so she wanted to look at my neighborhood oh and i Love being rich any ways she came for the Derby back to my interest in the show...... that show makes you want to point your finger at something and make it disappear i mean it is just so creative and i love it i would love to be on that show....... that show is just amazing i mean who ever came up with that show i want to just give them a big kiss i mean it makes me feel better when I'm sick and makes me happy when I'm mad i mean if someone tells me they don't like it i will talk some sense in to you OK OK,Positive "Big Bad Ralph is also on the not so squeazy truck commercials, and can be found at numerous brothels around Melbourne any given night.

Terrible Film by the way, wasn't shocking just bad, uninteresting

The main guy was in charge of the metal section on countdown , and was the lead bouncer at a gay night club in Melbourne.

I dunno who the women where? probably pros's that Ralph knew?

No story of interest, its one of those fast forward jobs

Please look up Big Bad Ralph at brothels around Melbourne

hes famous in them.

i wish i could give 0/10 but ill give it 1. Only cos i cant give 0",Negative "I've been watching this every night on VH1 this past week. This is a terrific revealing portrait about the drugs epidemic and how drugs were displayed in the media during the late 60's and on through the 70's.Woodstock,Easy Rider,The Beatles,The Death of Morrison, Hendrix, Joplin are all here. Vh1 has fashioned a complete intricate portrayal of the life and times during the ""Drug Years"". From the Sanfrancisco Bay Area to Studio 54 this documentary shows the evolution and advancement of the drug business and the death and new life it breathed into the American culture.From Marijuana to LSD to Cocaine this documentary shows the ways drugs were getting into the country, the hippie movement, the conservative resistance, and how drugs effected the arts (music , movies etc.) Featuring tons of fascinating interviews and news reel footage.

Drug Films: The Trip Easy Rider Up In Smoke Reefer Madness Blow Boogie Nights",Positive "I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying ""oh brother, what a load of ...."". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.",Negative "This movie has no story. It's only about a bunch of guys who tortures an innocent young girl to death.

!!!SPOILERS!!!

This is what they do: They beat her, put her in a net and let her hang inside like birdfood, spin her around on a chair until she pukes, expose her to loud noise, pour boiling oil on her, put worms in her sores, crush her hand with a sledge-hammer and finally pokes a needle through her eye.

This movie was so realistic that if I didn't know it was fake I would have thought it was a snuff-movie. Although I was disgusted by this movie i really liked it. It scared me. I guess it fills some kind of purpose. I give it a 10/10.",Positive "Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.

You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.

As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.

The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better.",Positive "The books of James Michener taking readers to faraway places with strange sounding names were probably at their most popular in the 1940s and 1950s. His Tales of the South Pacific became a major blockbuster Broadway hit for Rodgers&Hammerstein. South Pacific was directed by Joshua Logan and he was a natural to do the film adaption of another Michener success, Sayonara.

It was only a decade before that American films during World War II did not portray the Japanese kindly. I'm sure it wasn't easy for people who fought the Pacific war to change attitudes overnight. That and a general no fraternization policy with occupied peoples in general are at the crux of this story about interracial romance.

Sayonara is a relevant film today. The military has always butted in to the personal lives of its personnel in ways no civilian employer could get away with legally. In America at the time Sayonara was made there were still miscegenation laws on the books in many states. Today gays in the military is a big issue. Someone may one day do a Sayonara like film on that issue.

Joshua Logan was on familiar ground. South Pacific also had racism as a component of its plot. With a sure hand, Logan assembled a great cast and crafts a beautiful story.

Marlon Brando, Patricia Owens, James Garner, Kent Smith some of the occidental players do a fine job. But the picture is stolen by the orientals here. Miko Taka hits the mark beautifully as Brando's love interest. But the real stars are the two that one both Supporting players Oscars, Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki.

Buttons is your everyman enlisted man Air Force member. He falls passionately in love with Katsumi played by Miyoshi Umeki. They marry and the military cruelly does everything they can to break them up. They presume to KNOW what's best for Buttons and Umeki. Buttons was a TV comedian and a fair talent, but he never got a part as good as this the rest of his career.

And Miyoshi Umeki's Oscar was the first one given to an oriental. It got a great deal of attention because at the time of the Academy Awards, Miyoshi was starring on Broadway in Flower Drum Song. I was privileged to see it on Broadway, it was the first Broadway show I ever saw. I still carry the memory of it.

That Oscar symbolized something else too. Our war with Japan was really over and we saw in Sayonara a great nation with a proud tradition and culture.

Ricardo Montalban plays Nakamura, a Kabuki Theatre actor. If Sayonara were done today, Logan would never get away with it. But Montalban is fine.

Good location photography and a grand story. This film should be revived more often it has a great moral.",Positive "I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his ""afterlife adventures"" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.",Negative """They All Laughed"" is one of those little movies I am always recommending to friends seeking something out of the ordinary. It is firmly rooted in the screwball romance traditions of the past, but seems more contemporary. Even the decidedly early 80s atmosphere doesn't date it too much. Bogdanovich wisely keeps the whole enterprise so light on its feet, that reality never brings it crashing down to earth. But, that said, this sort of sweet little movie absolutely relies on the actors to keep it going, and ""TAL"" is blessed with a dream cast who understand the requirements of this sort of tale. It is a movie that wouldn't linger so long in the memory if it weren't for the little moments provided by the excellent cast: Colleen Camp's simultaneously shouting orders at John Ritter and her dog; Blaine Novak unleashing all that hair from under his hat; and especially the moment Dorothy Stratten falls for John Ritter and says, ""How...weird."" It's such a piece of fluff one doesn't want to lay too much on it for fear of crushing it, but it is certainly does leave one with a light heart and a smile on one's face.",Positive "Like all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a ""story"". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art film.",Negative "This is a great, ridiculous horror movie that captures the essence of the mid to late 80s' obsession with how evil metal music supposedly was. I can remember being freaked out by metal teens when I was a kid. It doesn't help that I found a desecrated grave in my hometown's graveyard when I was ten. Turns out this weird metal kid had dug up some old bodies and used their bones in some weird sacrifice to satan. So maybe stuff like deterred me from metal for awhile, but I love it now, as a 24 year old.

I bought this DVD used for 6 bucks and I expected it to suck due to the lame cover, but to my surprise, it ruled. It is all about the extreme demonic power of metal. And you gotta love a scene where a guitar shoots lazers and vaporizes headbangers in the crowd. This movie is awesome, if you love 80s metal and bad movies, this one's for you. 9/10!",Positive "With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.

That song about ‘arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there.

Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.",Negative "I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series (""The young and the restless"" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.

Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like ""You're dead now"". Then the main character says: ""If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me"". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): ""Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God"".

Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)",Negative "Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.

This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.

I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.

If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. ""DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!"" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT!",Negative "Hello, this little film is interesting especially for an artist, film-maker or music creator or a visual artist, for:

One can feel and examine David's touch/style straight out of a short piece of relative simplicity.

You can see the rhythmic spacing of the shots, the pans and the sound elements.

Even as simple film, this creation is multy-layer. For example, there are some sounds that drone all along, while others appear (though subtle), at certain points to support certain shots.

One can see also several types of pans: some go up and down in a gentle back-forth way. There is diagonal pan. Zooms also go back and forth sometimes.

The lightning and the composition/disposition of elements in the space is, as usual and obviously, work of a painer/artist. This can be felt even in this crappy room. This is to say: one can make exquisite art already by the simple art of placing the look/view and composing the scene. Then comes the forcelines of the visuals: like digonales, parallels, etc. The light's degradées and the colours, although without too much research for textures as in big productions, are fine too. This is an artist's sketch of a sort...

All this is not calculated but done with inner feeling and this feel gives the David's touch/feel to it, as with any true artist.",Positive "This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it. The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies. There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter. That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD. No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself. Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad. A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.",Negative "I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK.",Positive "The anime that got me hooked on anime...

Set in the year 2010 (hey, that's not too far away now!) the Earth is now poison gas wasteland of pollution and violence. Seeing as how crimes are happening ever 30 seconds are so and committed by thieves who have the fire power of third world terrorists, the government of the fictional New Port City form the Tank Police to deal with the problem - cops with tanks! Oh the insanity!

The ""heroes"" of this series include the new recruit Leona Ozaki, a red haired Japanese woman (yeah I know, they never match their distinctly Japanese names with a Japanese appearance) who has just been drafted into the Tank Police and is quickly partnered with blond, blue eyed nice guy Al. Leona is new at using tanks and unfortunately she destroys the favorite tank of Tank Police Commander Charles Britain (also known as ""Brenten""), a big guy who looks like Tom Selleck on steroids and sporting a pair of nifty sunglasses, a big revolver and a bad temper. Britain didn't like having Leona join the Tank Police in the first place and her wrecking his Tiger Special (a giant green monster tank) doesn't exactly endear her to him, nor is he fond of her taking the remains of his giant tank and using it to build a mini-tank that she nicknames Bonaparte and he is soon pushing to have her transferred to child welfare ""where the boys are more your size"" as he puts it. There's also Specs, the bifocal genius, Bible quoting/God fearing Chaplain, purple MO-hawked Mohican, and the pot bellied Chief, who's right on the edge thanks to the Mayor always yelling at him about the Tank Police antics. Seeing as how the tank cops often destroy half the city while chasing the bad guys and use extreme violence to capture them, they're not very well liked by the people.

The ""villains"" are a cyborg named Buaku who's got a mysterious past that's connected with a project known as ""Green Peace"", his gang and his two sexy cat cyborg sidekicks Anna & Uni Puma. In the first installment these guys are being paid to steal urine samples from a hospital treating people who haven't been infected by the poison gas clouds and in the 2nd they're hired to steal a painting that is of a naked Buaku. The story, however, was uncompleted in the anime and was finished up in a cult comic (""Manga"") book that's very hard to find.

All sorts of chaos and mayhem ensue in this black comic venture that examines how far people want their police to go in order to catch criminals and what happens when the fine line between good guys and bad guys starts to get blurred. This is the kind of thing that if you were going to make a movie of it, you'd better go get Quentin Tarantino. Uneven in places but still a lot of fun.

Followed by ""New Dominion: Tank Police"".",Positive "this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie",Positive "My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie ""Frogs"", ""Night of the Lepus"", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!

See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in ""Stargate""!

See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).

Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes ""Chicken Soup For The Soul"" sound like BF Skinner

Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.

For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert ""Mike Brady"" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.",Negative "I saw this movie as a child and it broke my heart! No other story had such a unfinished ending... I grew up on many great anime movies and this was one of my favourites, because it was so unusual - a story about unfairness, and cruelty, and loneliness, and life, and choices that can't be undone, and the need for others. Chirin is made alone when the Wolf kills his mother, but the Wolf is alone, too, when Chirin follows him into the mountain. The Wolf doesn't kill the lamb, even though each night he says ""maybe I'll eat you tomorrow."" The tape of it I have is broken and degraded from age and use. I will repair it and watch the movie again someday and cry just as hard as I did as a child. Stories like this, with this depth and feeling, and this intricacy of meaning, are very rare. It is a sad story, but I've never encountered any catharsis more beautifully made. I am glad I have seen this movie, and I'm glad I saw it as a child.",Positive "The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great.

I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie.

Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot.

And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.

The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya.

A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema.",Positive "This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole ""eager to be popular role"" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.

Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.",Negative "How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!",Negative "It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as ""Mrs Melbourne"".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as ""The Widow at Windsor"",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname ""Mrs Brown"".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and ""Young Victoria"" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. ""The Young Victoria"" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it.",Positive "This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad.",Negative "SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a ""road rage"" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....

Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.

Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty.",Negative "What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.

Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.

The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.

We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.

The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.

So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.

So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly – double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the ""Jerry, Jerry!"" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at ""Jerry! Jerry!""? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.",Negative "Okay, note to the people that put together these horror acting legends DVD-collections: I truly am grateful and I hugely support the initiative, but … have you even watched the films before selecting them as part of the collection? When I purchased the Boris Karloff collection there were several films in which the star only played a supportive and unessential role (""Tower of London"", ""The Strange Door""). ""The Invisible Ray"", however, is part of the Bela Lugosi collection and here it's actually Boris Karloff who overshadows Bela! This actually would have been a great title for the Boris Karloff collection instead! Bela Lugosi's character is quite possibly the most good-natured and earnest one he ever portrayed in his entire career and good old Karloff actually plays the mad and dangerously obsessed scientist here. ""The Invisible Ray"" features three main chapters. The first one, set in Dr. Janos Rukh's Carpathian castle is pretty boring and demands quite a lot of the viewer's patience, but of course the character drawings and the subject matter discussed here are fundamental for the rest of the film. Dr. Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to a couple of eminent colleagues (among them Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet) how he managed to capture extraterrestrial rays inside a self-manufactured device. The scientists are sincerely impressed with his work and invite Rukh and his lovely wife Diane along for an expedition in the heart of Africa. There Dr. Rukh isolates himself from the group, discovers the essential element ""Radium X"" to complete his medical ray and goes completely bonkers after being overexposed to the meteorite himself. The third and final act is obviously the best and most horrific one, as it revolves on a good old fashioned killing spree with ingenious gimmicks (melting statues) and a surprising climax. Karloff glows in the dark and, convinced the others are out to steal his discovery and even his life, he intends to eliminate them using his deadly touch. The narrative structure of ""The Invisible Ray"" sounds rather complicated, but the film is easy to follow and entertaining. The story is rather far-fetched but nevertheless compelling and director Lambert Hillyer provides several moments of sheer suspense. Boris Karloff is truly fantastic and so is Lugosi, even though he deserved to have a little more screen time. Their scenes together are the highlights of the film, along with the funky images of the glowing Boris.",Positive "Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be ""brainwashed in"" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi ""film noir"" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.",Positive "I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D",Positive "Good movies are original, some leave a message or touch you in a certain way, but sometimes you're not in the mood for that.

I wanted something simple, no thinking just plain action when I watched this one. It started of good and was quite entertaining, so why a bad review. Well in the end the movie lost it's credibility. The storyline wasn't that cheesy at all, the action was not too special but overall good, acting was OK, so more than enough to satisfy my needs. But all got ruined because things happened that were over the top, and it left me with a bad feeling. They should have put a little more effort in making everything credible and would have gotten a 7 in the ""no thinking just plain action"" category. So in conclusion if you know you'll get irritated because things are happening that seem completely illogical: don't watch! otherwise I'd say go ahead...",Negative "The king is dead long live the King! The triad of Caddie Shack Two, The Family underneath the Stairs, and Troop Beverly Hills had been tied for worst movie ever for so long that they seemed icons in their own right. But there is a new king.....yep.....all hail the new king....""Down to Earth"". But some things, like Tiny Tim for example, are so bad they are good. Some day this could take out the inimitable ""Rocky Horror Picture Show"" as a cult film. So go see this ....this....well just take my word for it. Go see it. All hail the new king!",Negative "I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.",Positive "Who are these ""They""- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.

Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.

Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. ""They All Laughed"" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.

Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But ""Laughed"" is a faint echo of ""The Last Picture Show"", ""Paper Moon"" or ""What's Up, Doc""- following ""Daisy Miller"" and ""At Long Last Love"", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.

All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...",Negative "Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.

A good film overall, 10/10!",Positive "I'm a big fan of Lucio Fulci; many of his Giallo and splatter flicks are amongst my favourites of all time, but this made for TV movie is extremely sub par and not what I've come to expect from the great Italian director. The film is neither interesting, like some of Fulci's more tame Giallo's, or gory like the majority of his cult classics; thus leaving it lacking in both major areas, and ultimately ensuring that the film isn't very good. The film works from a plot that has been used many times previously, but still it's an idea that always has the chance of springing an interesting story just because it focuses on the theme of the afterlife, which is the ultimate unknown. This film focuses on Giorgio Mainardi; a man that isn't exactly well liked and after he dies of an apparent stomach hemorrhage, there aren't many people that are sad to see him go. This means that his ghost is trapped somewhere between life and the afterlife, and so he decides to try and get to the bottom of his death, and his only ally in this endeavour is his daughter.

The video that I saw this film on is proudly proclaimed that the film is ""in the style of HP Lovecraft"", and that's one of the most blatant attempts to sell a film I've ever seen. There is nothing even slightly reminiscent of the great horror writer in this tale, and the reason for that tagline would appear to be because of title similarity to the Stuart Gordon/Lovecraft film, 'From Beyond' - which is a lot better. The film does benefit from a distinctly Italian style, and the score is rather good. Unfortunately, however, Fulci has seen fit to positively roast every scene in it - and so the theme quickly becomes annoying. The plot plays out in a really boring way, and most of the scenes simply involve the ghost 'desperately' trying to find things out, or the daughter placing her suspicions over her family members. This movie was made for Italian TV, and so it's not surprising that it's all rather tame. There's a little bit of gore and a nightmare sequence with zombies; but this isn't the Fulci we all know and love. Overall, this film is extremely mediocre and not a good representation of Fulci's talents. Not worth bothering with, unless you're a Fulci completist.",Negative "Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci are an excellent couple and demonstrate it with their unique charisma featured in this movie.

This is the typical ""alternative"" or indie movie with a plot that features a rare situation that suddenly becomes really important.

Pecker is an average boy who has an old camera and his main hobby is to take photographs of the exotic habitants of the small town where he lives in. Suddenly an alternative artist pays attention to his work and hires him in order to expose his work in some important festivals and more.

But Pecker life changes drastically as now fortune and fame seem to infuriate the town's people who are Pecker's main inspiration. Even his sexy girlfriend gets mad because now he does not pays the ""adequate"" attention to her.

Well this is an Indie movie with an edge but not for everyone. It may seem boring or pretentious for some people but still I think it worths a watch only because it offers something ""different"" than Hollywood's typical standards.

To describe in a few words: This is the typical Christina Ricci and John Waters movie. That's it.

Oh and I almost forgot to mention that the ""Full of Grace"" lines are really annoying. Geez.",Positive """Mechenosets"" is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as ""the sword-bearer"". The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again.",Positive "If you're as huge of a fan of an author as I am of Jim Thompson, it can be pretty dodgy when their works are converted to film. This is not the case with Scott Foley's rendition of AFTER DARK MY SWEET. A suspenseful, sexually charged noir classic that closely follows and does great justice to the original text. Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward give possibly the best performances of their careers. And the always phenomenal Bruce Dern might have even toped him self with this one. Like Thompson's book this movie creates a dark and surreal world where passion overcomes logic and the double cross is never far at hand. A must see for all fans of great noir film. ****!!!",Positive "This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.",Negative "The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.

The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).

The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.

The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.

I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the ""nothing"" that inhabits this film.",Negative "Recipe for one of the worst movies of all time: a she-male villain who looks like it escaped from the WWF, has terrible aim with a gun that has inconsistent effects (the first guy she shoots catches on fire but when she shoots anyone else they just disappear) and takes time out to pet a deer. Then you got the unlikable characters, 30 year old college students, a lame attempt at a surprise ending and lots, lots more. Avoid at all costs.",Negative "I tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this ""movie"", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.

It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.

THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the ""warm and fuzzy"" aspects of either of these two books.

So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.

And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up ""dragons"", is added to the mix of mayhem.

The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed ""Witchiepoo"" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).

In summary, this movie is terrifying...

If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy.",Negative "I saw this by chance showing on cable on wanted to like it as I thought Sandra was quite funny from what I remembered. The only facial movement I had throughout the movie was jaw dropping stunned at how awful a movie I just suffered through.

The person who said this is one of the funniest movies of all time please point out one line, just one scene, that is even worth a chuckle.

She is a much better singer than I remember her to be, but I didn't want to watch a lounge act.

I think this is a movie try hard to like since they think they should and don't view it objectively.",Negative "Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?

When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!",Negative "This would have to be one of the funniest TV sitcoms to come out of the States since the demise of ""Everybody Loves Raymond"". Warburton is always hilarious, and in this complements the rest of the ensemble cast to perfection. David Spade continues to tickle my funny bone enormously with his quite unique delivery of his lines. After having raved over the British series, ""Coupling"" I can see from just where the creators of ""Rules of Engagement"" got their original idea, but this is not intended as being a ""brickbat"" - the absolutely brilliant dialogue and the way in which it is conveyed set this particular series completely apart. But it takes more than a competent cast to bring success to a new series, particularly in the very difficult field of comedy. Having been a part of a professional TV comedy writing team for the best part of 7 years in Australia, I can appreciate particularly, the role of director and the perceptional and creative talent of the camera crew. One of the few grievances I have with the series is the very obviously ""canned"" laughter. Surely a live audience could have been used in the shooting of the series.",Positive "I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.

I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation.

None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.",Negative "Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).

This is easily my second favourite football movie after ""Mike Bassett: England Manager"", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round).

It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance...

Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).

Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go ""Yup.""

I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.

Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery",Positive "If I hadn't read his name on the DVD cover, I never would have suspected that this rather gushy and old fashioned musical was made by a man so closely associated with the French New Wave. In fact, the film is so far from that, that I wonder if back in the 50s and 60s, New Wave auteurs would have absolutely hated this type of film--it's so...so...unreal. And, it seems to have little to do with so many of his previous films. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--just a very surprising thing.

What I also found a bit surprising was the amount of praise some of the reviewers gave this film--especially when there are so many better French musicals out there. The songs in this film were simply not particularly interesting and the characters all seemed so bland and stereotypical. If I had to see another rich person who fretted about how hard it is to be rich or get a good sale price on a designer outfit, I was going to puke.

The bottom line is that like American musicals, not every French musical is gold. This film is not another ""Les parapluies de Cherbourg"" (UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or ""Huit Femmes"" (EIGHT WOMEN) and despite the presence of Audrey Tautou, I can't see much reason to recommend it as anything other than a dull oddity.",Negative "I read Schneebaum's book (same title as this film) when it was first published and was deeply moved by his ability to see through the many ways of ""otherness"" (his own and the people of the Amazon with whom he lived and loved) to a way of living a decent life. His subsequent books were not as powerful, but showed his continuing quest. His description of his sexual relations with the men of the tribe was way ahead of its time in the early 60's, but his honesty and openness about it were welcome. This movie beautifully conveys both the quirkiness and generosity of the man, but also provides a glimpse into the inevitable destruction of innocence (which is not a morally positive term, in this case) that occurs when ""civilized"" men intrude on traditional societies. Even so, Schneebaum himself has moved into a kind of higher innocence that suggests the possibility of saving humanity from its own destructiveness.",Positive "What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!",Negative "A film written and directed by Neil Young, ""Greendale"" is little more than an 87-minute music video set to a doxen or so of the songwriter's works. In lieu of dialogue, the film relies exclusively on Young's lyrics, which are heavily laced with sociopolitical commentary, to tell the ""story"" while actors act out the scenes.

Given the hammy performances and the shoddy graininess of the picture, the effect is the equivalent of Young blowing up some of his own home movies and releasing them for public consumption. Although there is allegedly a ""story"" running through the film, we really have no idea what is going on thanks mainly to the unpolished look of the film, the lack of dialogue and the amateurish ineptitude of the acting. All we get for eighty-seven minutes is a bunch of aging hippies cavorting silently through an incoherent narrative while Young's songs play endlessly on the soundtrack. The whole thing turns into a tedious exercise in self-indulgence. ""Greendale"" gives off-Hollywood, low budget movie-making a bad name.",Negative "I was amazed at the improvements made in an animated film. If you sit close to the screen, you will see the detail in the grass and surface structures. The detail, colors, and shading are at least an order of magnitude better than Toy Story. How they were able to pull off the shading, I will never know. I do hope that PIXAR will provide a documentary on how the film was produced so I can find out how all this was accomplished. Based on this film, I think animated films of the future will be judged on the basis of this film.",Positive "I saw this on a flight over to the U.S and was a little sceptical at first as a few people had said there were so many characters in it that you didnt get to know any of them. However I didnt find this at all. The film is fast, but this is due to the nature of the director and the star. The chase scenes are excellent and yes it may be predictable but isnt that true of most films. The main villain is a bit of a let down, Christopher Eccelston is not as convincing as he could have been, but that said its still a good film.",Positive "Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made.",Negative "I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants.

The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian.

fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.

so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy.

I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win.

After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank god

Now our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises.

The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey""ish"".

The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?

Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again.

So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends",Negative "Who would have thought that a movie about a man who drives a couple hundreds of miles on his lawn mower to see his brother, could possibly be good cinema? I certainly didn't. I thought I knew what to expect: one of the most boring experiences of my life. Well I was as wrong as I haven't been wrong too often yet, because this is one of the best, most realistic and honest Hollywood films I've ever seen...

Giving a short resume of ""The Straight Story"" isn't very difficult. It's about an old and stubborn man who steps on his lawn mower and drives off to another state to pay his brother a visit when he hears that the man has had a severe stroke. That's already special on itself, but what makes it even more special is the fact that he hasn't seen his brother in ten years because of some stupid argument. In the meantime he has his share of bad luck and problems, but he also meets a lot of people whose lives he influences in one way or another with his philosophical approach to life. Despite all the difficulties he drives on for weeks, not knowing if he will reach his goal: seeing his brother again before it's too late...

I can easily understand why there are people who don't like this movie and that's also the reason why I will not say that these people don't have a heart or things like that... This movie hasn't got any flashy action scenes, it is as slow as the lawn mower the man is driving on and no, you don't have to watch it for the nice soundtrack either, because there isn't any. But why should you watch it then? Well, the simple answer is the story. I haven't seen such a touching movie with such a powerful story very often and the fact that this actually comes from Hollywood and - to make things even better - from the Disney Studio's (that's right, the same studios that overwhelm us with sugar sweet nonsense) makes it even more special. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had the tears in my eyes a couple of times while watching it, probably because the whole situation of not seeing someone for many years because of some stupid argument is all too realistic for me.

Some people will argue that the story is very shallow, but I really don't agree with that. Perhaps it is because they only see that old man driving on his lawn mower and don't want to think any further. If you look close enough than you'll understand that this man is doing all this because he knows he has once been wrong, that only his pride stood in the way of seeing his brother again and that he wants everybody else to see that too, so they won't make the same mistake. If that isn't deep enough, how much deeper does a story have to go for you then?

I would also like to add that this movie really had it all. Some beautiful landscapes (finally an American movie that shows something else than the skyline of New York, Chicago or some other big city), some very fine acting by Richard Farnsworth, Sissy Spacek,... and a very understandable way of telling despite the fact that this is a David Lynch movie. I know now that I was completely wrong by assuming that this movie wouldn't be to my taste. It's one of the very best movies I've seen in a long time. This movie aimed for my heart and hit the bull's eye. I give it the full 10/10.",Positive "This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible.

There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them)

Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix.

Examples

>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader.

>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????

>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....

There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's????

There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either.

Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.",Negative "Riding Giants is an amazing movie. It really shows how these people lived back then just to surf. Their lives were basically surfing, living, breathing, and having fun. They didn't care about money, jobs, girls or any thing. To them the waves were their girls. I have never been on a surf board, and it looks so hard, I don't understand how they can stay on them, it makes no sense at all. This is an awesome movie and if you love surfing then you should really see this movie. If you're a surfer and you want to find out who started surfing, how it came into life, who is really famous at it or what ever, then you should really see it. It might be a documentary, but it is really good. -Tara F.-",Positive "That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said ""boasting brilliant animation""! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!",Negative "James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.

A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.

This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem.",Positive "Billy Wilder is co-credited for the story, and his unsentimental touch is noticeable in this quite original tale of ghostwriting songwriters who both work for burnt-out music legend Oliver Courtney. The obvious misunderstandings are gotten out of the way quite quickly, thank heaven, and what remains is a witty and breezy concoction with some fine songs (and some more forgettable ones), Crosby at his most charming, a great turn by Broadway legend Mary Martin and Basil Rathbone and Oscar Levant providing most of the cynical barbs (Levant is in rare form and his quips haven't dated at all). A delightful surprise, and recommended for all fans of the genre.",Positive "After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL

The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf

This movie is a tedious exercise

The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock

The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes

Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL

Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay",Negative "I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.

The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.

I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.

The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.

The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.

The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.

Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.

And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.",Negative "I cannot believe that they managed to spend US$17million on this film. Spectacularly bad acting, egregious scripting and effects that you could do on your average PC, unbelievable plot contrivances...a reporter who can get an inexperienced stewardess a major job at the UN? What? Not only that, but the message of this film is so unsubtle that you come out feeling as if they've tried to batter you over the head with a full size crucifix. All this movie will do will preach to the choir and make everyone else laugh at such a ridiculous waste of money. If the makers of this film really wanted to sway people to christianity and show what it means to truly believe, they would have used the money to help people truly in need. Now, /that/ might have swayed some people into actually listening to them.",Negative "There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.

Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he ""got"" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was ""My Name is Modesty,"" a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.

The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her ""origin."" I realize the words ""Direct-to-Video"" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.",Positive "This is a good movie, a good family movie to watch if you have nothing else to do. If you are expecting this movie to be word to word from the book, you will be very very disappointed. I was somewhat disappointed because I read the book a few times when I was in elementary school.

This is about a new kid in town named Billy. He makes a bet with the school bully and the bet is not like most bets. Billy has to eat 10 worms in one day or the bully wins.

The acting is OK, probably the worst part of the movie. The kid actors over exaggerate on many things. They think it's apocalypse if Billy does not eat the worms. Hallie Eisenberg did a magnificent job, though.

The plot line is good as a movie, but it sucks as a book adaptation. I was able to watch this movie without looking at the time....sometimes.

Overall, this was a good family movie with some weak points. I rate this movie 7/10.",Positive "I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me.

But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you!

Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.

Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!

Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating.

And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.",Negative "OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.

I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).

This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.

I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.

Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...",Negative "They did it. And, boy, did they do it fantastically or what! The BBC finally brought the Doctor back to our screens on a Saturday evening where he belongs! And they did it with style!

EPISODE ONE: ""Rose"" - One of the strengths of the new series is Russel T Davies as a writer and executive producer. He's a fan of the show and knows what the other fans want, but also is an experienced writer in his own right, so knows what other people want. Another strength, as perfectly shown here in this first episode, is Billie Piper and her character of Rose Tyler. Finally the Doctor's companion gets a credible back story and a strong character. Also nice to see the return of the Autons - a nice nod to the Classic Series there.

EPISODE TWO: ""The End Of The World"" - In the start of this double bill to show off the TARDIS' strengths, we end up in a story where special effects is everything! They now have the technology to create real, believable environments and monsters - no more rubber suits of sorts! Also the hints at the end of this episode regarding the new Doctor's past - very intriguing to kill off all the Time Lords and make him the only one.

EPISODE THREE: ""The Unquiet Dead"" - We've had the future, now lets have the past. The first non-Davies written episode is a little flat in some places, but this is made up for by Simon Callow's Charles Dickens and the sudden twist in the plot when it is revealed the pitiful Gelf are not so pitiful after all...

EPISODE FOUR: ""Aliens Of London"" - The consequences of the Doctor's actions are fully explored in this series, not least with the repercussions of Rose running off with him. Also, we have our first cliffhanger; not the best of ones admittedly. The Slitheen are an interesting villain, though they can look too CGI for their own good.

EPISODE FIVE: ""World War Three"" - The second part of this story about the Slitheen suffers mainly from the same problems of the first. Also, the clips from the next episode coming up at the end of the current episode are annoying and spoil it for people.

EPISODE SIX: ""Dalek"" - Yes! We've had the future, the past, and the present(ish), but now we get to the good stuff - the return of the Doctor's arch-nemesis. Here I think we can complement Christopher Ecclestone - he was brilliant as the Doctor, and no more so then in this episode, where we see the pain on his face as he recollects the Time War and the alien nature of him as he almost turns into a Dalek himself.

EPISODE SEVEN: ""The Long Game"" - really only a story to act as a prologue for the series finale. Saved by Simon Pegg as the smarmy Editor and Tamsin Grieg in an amusing cameo. The media are controlling us - that's never been done before, has it...

EPISODE EIGHT: ""Father's Day"" - this is a great episode. Full of human emotion and heartache for Rose, and the true consequences of what happens when you really muck up history. Full marks to Billie Piper here.

EPISODE NINE: ""The Empty Child"" - I don't find this kid very scary. Sorry, but I don't. It's a good episode though, but the cliffhanger still could have been better - it's those ""Next Time"" bits that spoil them. John Barrowman is introduced here as Captain Jack, the dashing conman - he's a good actor who's been around for a while but only seemingly noticed now.

EPISODE TEN: ""The Doctor Dances"" - Part two of this WW2 story - very well made in historical context terms. A nice upbeat ending, though a little confusing perhaps for younger viewers when the ""Mummy"" is revealed?

EPISODE ELEVEN: ""Boom Town""- probably the weakest of the series, but that doesn't mean its bad. A nice return for the Slitheen and also an interesting character study of the Doctor and Rose.

EPISODE TWELVE: ""Bad Wolf"" - this starts off quite silly, with some good-hearted humour and cheeky fun making at popular TV shows over her in Blighty. Things turn deadly serious quickly, though, and the revelation at the end is the best cliffhanger in the series!

EPISODE THRITEEN: ""Parting Of The Ways"" - Goodbye Christopher Ecclestone. A fantastic Doctor in so many ways, David Tennant is having to really work his socks off to be as good as him. The regeneration scene at the end is beautifully played. Oh, and the Daleks are back - in the extreme! God bless CGI, because they'd never be able to pull this off normally!

Overall - brilliant! 9/10",Positive "I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.

I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...

I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)",Positive "Released two years before I was born, this Oscar-winning movie has it all - lavish Technicolor sets and costumes, breathtaking cinematography, superb wall-to-wall Gershwin music, superior choreography, a lighter-than-air screenplay, and great performances by Kelly, Levant, Foch, Guetary, and Caron. Hollywood doesn't make 'em like this anymore. Definitely, this is my favorite movie of all time, a standard by which I judge all other films. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY!",Positive "had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling ""you lazy bastard"" at the screen when the credits popped up.",Negative "Here is an innovative television drama; which so easily blends a compelling story, brilliantly drawn out character development, humour, romance, and drama into each episode. Here is a show that sings to it's own tune, whether it's audience chooses to follow or not. How many other shows on television these days so boldly change in tone from one season to the next? Where most of the other top shows on this site have found a formula that works, that brings in the viewers and the dollars and have stuck like glue to that formula (Prison Break, 24, and Desperate Housewives come to mind) - LOST takes a different route where even after achieving that plateau and that winning formula, the team of executive producers are brave enough to completely reinvent the show in order to service their higher goal of compelling storytelling. This is where LOST differentiates itself from normal television. This is how it's so defiant of conventional TV. And this is why LOST is one of the most cutting edge and innovative creations of modern television. Forget the naysayers - LOST is, has been, and always will be, there to appease it's cult following first and the general public next. But it's a testament to it's inventiveness that it's garnered a fan base which consists of the best of both audiences.",Positive "The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it.",Positive "I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.

The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.

It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!",Negative "To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like ""Blow up"" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.",Negative "This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. ""The Far Country"" is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his ""deputies"" will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright.",Positive "This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.

Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. ""If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story.""

In conclusion: Absolute human waste.",Negative "This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between ""Pushing Daisies"" style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen ""Amelie."" ""Pushing Daisies"" is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to ""Dead Like Me"" but ""P.D"" comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an ""undead"" young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.

I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of ""without consequences of any kind"" because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.

But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on ""NYPD Blue"" did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year.",Positive "can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).

the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.

The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting ""O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic"". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.",Negative "A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, the fifth installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and the worst sequel ever in the series, even worse than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street DVD box set for my birthday and I watched all the sequels. The dream child was the worst without a doubt, I was surprised too since they were doing so well with the last two sequels. But I guess they just lost the charm, the story was just ridicules and I wasn't happy with where it went. Alice just became more annoying, she's not Nancy or Kirsten, so her carrying this film on her own didn't work for me. Freddy is also loosing his scare, this was just getting a bit silly.

Alice is back and she's carrying a child, she couldn't be happier with her life. But Freddy is also back and he's not going to be too light on her since she defeated him so easily in the fourth movie. But anyways, he wants her child and to be born into the world again. Did you ever wonder if Freddy had parents too? Well that's what A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child investigates and Alice soon finds out what Freddy's childhood was like and that maybe that's the one thing that can defeat him.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child is just all in all a bad movie and an insult to the series. I don't think anyone could be happy with this sequel. Just the story was really silly, I mean it could have possibly worked, but once again, it was just executed the wrong way. I know that if you're looking to see the sequels for the Nightmare on Elm Street series, you should watch it, but I really wouldn't recommend it, it's not worth it, at least in my opinion.

3/10",Negative "I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the ""racism"" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like ""well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women."" So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year!",Positive "With the death of GEORGE NADER, on 4 February 2002, I thought of this most interesting program, which even though it had only a short run, was a tremendous idea with good story lines throughout. Generally unseen for over 40+ years it would be worth viewing again. The opening credits showed many differing images, one of which was a snippit of COLONEL JOHN PAUL STAPP, riding his famed rocket sled, at the point where he was often referred to as ""The Fastest Man Alive"".",Positive "Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...

First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!

I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!

Are you getting the picture?",Negative "One of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.

First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like ""The Good Earth"", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. ""Gold or Grain"" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.",Negative "I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.",Negative "The little girl Desi is so adorable... I cant think of a more beautiful story then this one here. It will make you cry, laugh, and believe. Knowing that this was based on a true story just made me gasp and it also made me realize that there are nice people out there. Great cast and an overall great movie.",Positive "Really, really bad slasher movie. A psychotic person escapes from an asylum. Three years later he kills a sociology professor, end of scene. One semester yesterday later (hey, that's what the title card said) a new sociology professor is at the school. She makes friends with another female sociology professor who works there, and starts dating another professor. The students are all bored, as are we.

There are a number of title cards indicating how much time has passed. Scenes are pretty short, and cut to different characters somewhere else, making for little progression of any kind. A lot of scenes involve characters walking and talking, or sitting and talking, and serve little purpose. Despite the passage of time, many of the characters are always wearing the same clothing. Sometimes the unclear passage of time means when we see a body for the second time, we ask ourselves: how long has that body been there? And also, at least one of the dead people don't seem to have been missed by others.

The killer manages to kill one person by stabbing her in the breast, another by stabbing him in the crotch, and another by slicing her forehead. Is his knife poisoned or something?

The video box cover has a cheerleader: there aren't any in the movie. The rear cover has a photo of someone in a graduation cap and gown menacing a group of women in a dorm room. The central redhead in the photo is in the movie, but nobody ever wears such an outfit, and there is no such scene. The killer is strictly one-on-one.",Negative "Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10",Positive "I liked Top Gun. It held my interest. Predictable plot, decent character development and story line. It is pretty similar to High Noon in that the town people appear weak and scared to stand up to a villain. This movie has some quality actors who really did not get a chance to share all of their talents. Also some of the actors did not receive credit for their roles. Denver Pyle was a good looking man in his younger days. John Dehner, Rod Taylor are outstanding in their roles. Sterling Hayden did the best that he could with poor material. It is hard to imagine him as a gunslinger. Laura, played by Karen Booth, was a nauseating character. She seemed flattered that two men may have been fighting over her. Ugh. Finally, How can people travel without luggage? Especially women.",Positive "This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it!",Positive "Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.

It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.

It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.",Negative "This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.

Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.

THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel ""Gun Down"", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.

Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.",Positive "As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.

Fooey.

Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.

Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.

Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, ""Maybe I'm wrong.""",Negative "True, it does not follow the book very closely, but it's still a very entertaining take on the story. Swayze was far better in the role than I expected. And Doody avoided the ""silly woman out of her depth in the wilderness"" portrayal most of us probably expected (cf. Kate Capshaw in ""Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom"").

At any rate, it's amazingly better than Richard Chamberlain's awful pair of Quatermain flicks.

It is very reminiscent of a western in many ways. About the only thing I didn't care for was all the mysticism, but I guess that is part and parcel of the genre. Like ""how can you have an African adventure story without witch doctresses and preternaturally wise wandering tribesmen?"" Heh.",Positive "Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film.

Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons.

DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways).

I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.",Positive "I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:

This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.

You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended.",Positive "Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.

And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.

I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.

By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",Positive "This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.",Negative "Having lived in Ontario my whole life, in the same town that Marlene Moore grew up in, I've heard stories of her from my parents, grandparents and family members. So when I found out that they would be filming a movie about her, and that the beginning would be shot on my street, and her house quite close to mine I was excited.

If you read the book Rock a Bye Baby, which is about Marlene Moore you get quite the different image of her as a person, she was considered awkwardly beautiful by people who really had the chance to know her with the exception of her own family who frequently abused her as a child, with the exception of one of her brothers. Also, if you live in my area and are intelligent enough to listen to those around you who knew her from school you'd find out that she was truly wounded before she even set foot in an institution, she was always defensive and what would seem like an unwillingness to learn in a school environment was actually embarrassment over the fact that she was unable to.

Marlene did not deserve the life she was given, with the lack of help she desperately needed to receive. It was the government and the people around her that aided further in her death by not attempting to understand her needs and why she did what she did. I still find myself angered that she was put in jail for self-defense from a man who tried to rape her. As her brother once said, ""They didn't know what to do with her so they locked her away and it killed her."" I believe in that with all my heart.

Rest in peace Marlene, you deserve it so much.",Positive "As low budget indies go, you will usually find that you get what you pay for, and let me just say, I didn't pay much for ""Frightworld""...

Writer / Director: David R. Williams brings us the story of an abandoned amusement park, besieged by the vengeful spirit of a slain serial killer. Not a bad premise, but executed with a bevy of low budget mistakes. The camera work tries to be too cleaver for it's audience, by constantly using shaky quick-cuts to cover the fact that they really have nothing gory or scary to show us. This becomes evident right off the bat, as we are introduced to the would-be killer, and soon realize that the (acting) is the scariest thing happening... After a painfully long title sequence we are brought back to modern times, yet the acting remains the same. ""Frightworld"" does generate some rather unique cinematography when showing scenery from inside the fun-house, but with an extremely long running time, it can't save the film from it's below average indie hell.

There is some mediocre nudity, but not much for gore, which is usually the saving grace for these types of movies.

Fans of really bad B-Movies might find something of interest here, otherwise, don't spend a lot of cash.",Negative "Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha

Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.

The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.

Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.",Negative "This ""documentary"" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.

There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.

The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that ""empty"" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the ""coup"", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said ""'cause they weren't there to act against the president"", isn't that a confession?

There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because ""that's politics"" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.

It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this ""documentary"", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.

I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.

Nazi propaganda has returned!",Negative "Take:

1. a famous play

2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using

3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.

4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: ""Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark""

I listened to the radio play of ""Hamlet"" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on ""Hamlet"", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.",Negative "I vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of ""Saturday Night Live"". I didn't rent ""Corky Romano"" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.",Negative "It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the ""stage"", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).

The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the ""heat is on"", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the ""saitn"" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.

Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A-",Positive "One of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through, Killer Tongue is a horrible melange of the worst elements of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Brain Damage, and Pulp Fiction. Designed primarily to offend, apparently, but so inane that only the most hidebound conservatives would be taken in by it.",Negative "Talk about a blast opening, ""Trampa Infernal"" has the coolest opening credits ever! Guided by musical tones that are perhaps slightly inspired by the legendary ""Friday the 13th"" theme (Tsh-Tsh-Tsh-Ha-Ha-Ha), the names of the lead players appear on screen split up in giant syllables. Promising intro of a totally obscure Mexican slasher/backwoods survival thriller and it only becomes cooler with every minute that passes. Two extremely competitive and testosterone-overloaded paintball enemies challenge each other to the ultimate showdown in a sleazy bar. According to a newspaper article, there's a savage bear loose in the nearby woods and it already killed multiple of the hunters that tried to catch it. The challenge includes that whoever kills the bear will be declared the ultimate macho hero with the biggest set of balls. Upon arrival, however, it quickly becomes obvious they're not up against a bear but a bewildered and utterly maniacal war veteran with quite an arsenal of weapons in his hideout and numerous combat tricks up his sleeve. After a whole decade of tame and derivative American slashers, this early 90's Mexican effort looks and feels very refreshing and vivid. The formula is simplistic but efficient, the lead characters are plausible enough and the building up towards the confrontations with the sadist killer is reasonably suspenseful. The maniac must have been a fan of Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, as he also uses a self-made glove with sharp knives attached to it and a white mask to cover his face. The murders are pleasingly nasty and barbaric, which I was really hoping for since the awesome aforementioned opening sequences, and waste a whole lot of gratuitous blood. The forestry setting and particularly the camouflaged booby traps are joyously spectacular. ""Trampa Internal"" is a Mexican slasher/survival sleeper hit that comes warmly recommended to the fans of the genre.",Positive "Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.

He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.

His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.

The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.

At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.

It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.

Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist.",Positive "I sincerely hope that at least the first season of Cosby is released on DVD someday. The episode with Hilton's eccentric genius brother, George (played by the late Roscoe Lee Browne), is classic hilarity. It reflects the classic sibling rivalry and love between brothers whose lives took different paths but both ended up happy.

Mr. Cosby and Ms. Rashad brilliantly recaptured the chemistry that they shared on The Cosby Show for many years and to put them in a more middle-class role shows the dimensions they can take as artists.

The roster of comedic dynamite...Madeline Kahn, Phylicia Rashad, and Mr. Cosby ...classic genius!",Positive "well i don't know what people saw in this movie i don't know.

i saw this movie yesterday and i got a severe headache. other than few good dialog there is nothing in this movie.

the big b rt now is preaching to fall in love with girls of half of you age.

i didn't like the movie at all. i wanted to give 1 rating but giving 3 as

i like the role of the small girl who is called ""sexy"" by AB. my word ""DONT WATCH""

save your self donot watch this movie.

save time and money.",Negative "If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10

",Positive "When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers!",Positive "This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.",Negative "My college professor says that Othello may be Shakespeare's finest drama. I don't know if I agree with him yet. I bought this video version of the film. First I love Kenneth BRanagh as Iago, he was perfectly complicated and worked very well in this adaptation. SUrprisingly, he didn't direct it but played a role. Lawrence Fishburne shows that American actors can play Shakespeare just as well as British actors can do. not that there was a British vs. American issue about it. In fact, if we all work together then Shakespeare can reach the masses which it richly deserves to do. Apart from other Shakespeare tragedies, this is dealt with the issue of race. Something that has existed since the beginning of time. The relationship between Iago and Emilia could have been better and shown the complicatedness of their union together. While Othello loves Desdemona with all his heart, he is weak for jealousy and fears losing her to a non-Moorish man like Cassio. It's quite a great scene at the end of the film but I won't reveal the ending. IT's just worth watching. I think they edited much of the lines to 2 hours but they always edit Shakespeare.",Positive "I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff.

Ahh well, better luck next time eh?",Negative "I want so badly to give this piece of GARBAGE a zero, unfortunately, there isn't, so, I had to give it a 1 just to warn you about how stupidly terrible this imposter of a familiar cartoon really is! The characters look like they were drawn by pre-schoolers, no, wait, I've seen pre-schoolers do better! I prefer ""Misadventures of Flapjack"" to this terrible excuse for a cartoon! I'm probably saying what others have said, two words: RIP OFF!! Remember that episode of Dexter's Lab when they raced go-karts down that volcano? yeah, Mister Fellows even cashed in on that idea and failed! They even ripped off Shadow Lugia in that one episode that parodied Pokemon!(he even cashed in on that franchise!) That one character is a cheap rip off of Mandark from Dexter's Lab! Mister Fellows needs to be sued for statutory infringement for this piece of crap!! Everyone has their own opinion, but those of you who like Johnny (RIP-OFF) Test, your'e just lying to yourselves. Do yourself a favor, change the channel when this rip off tries to disgrace your screen!",Negative "You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as ""Special Guest Star."" Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the ""Partridge Family"" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for ""Charlie's Angels."" As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.

The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their ""range."" Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see ""McCloud"" and ""Duel""). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.",Negative "Quick and simple, I love this movie.

As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love ""Goodfellas."") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?

It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to ""Pulp Fiction"", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!

Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!!",Positive "I have seen Slaughter High several times over the years, and always found it was an enjoyable slasher flick with an odd sense of humor, but I never knew that it was filmed in the UK, and I never knew that the actor that plays Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) committed suicide after the film was released. I guess I did notice while watching it last night that the actors phrasing seems rather odd for Americans, and a few of them aren't very good at hiding their English accents.

All that aside though, this is the tale of the class nerd, Marty, who is the butt of jokes from his classmates, and on one particular day, April Fools Day, he's lured into the girl's locker room by one Caroline Munro (yes, playing a teenager) and humiliated big time on film. Of course, the coach catches the gang at work & they're all given a vigorous workout to punish them, but not before a couple of the guys slip Marty a joint, which he tries to smoke in the chemistry lab, but it's full of something that makes him sick & when he runs to the restroom, one of his classmates slips in and puts a chemical that reacts with something Marty is mixing, which results in a fire and the spill of a bottle of nitric acid, which leaves poor Marty burned & horribly scarred.

Ten years later, this same gang is headed for their class reunion at good old Doddsville High, which seems oddly boarded up and inaccessible, but thanks to ingenuity they manage to get in and find the place seemingly derelict...except there's a room where a banquet and liquor is laid out and so of course, they eat, drink, and be merry. For soon, they will die, of course.

The gang is stalked one-by-one by a figure in a jester's mask, but could it be Marty? They don't know, they figure he's either in a loony bin or working for IBM, they're not sure which. But whoever it is, he's making quick work of them. Particularly nasty is the girl that takes a bath to wash blood off her from one of her classmates whose innards popped all over her when he drank poisoned beer. She is victim to an acid bath which I believe may have been one of the parts originally cut in the tape version, because it seemed extra nasty when I watched it this time. I could be wrong but I believe that wasn't on the tape.

At any rate, there's somewhat of a twist ending, and that also contains footage not on the tape, I believe. There's also a bit of frontal nudity early on that was also excised, but apart from that I didn't really notice if there were other bits on this uncut version, probably so but it's been a while since I've last seen it.

At any rate, if you're a fan of 80's slasher flicks then snap up the new release DVD, because it's a fun little slasher with a good atmosphere & feel to it. 7 out of 10.",Positive "A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.

If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 ""full-length"" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known.",Positive "BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form.",Negative "The humor implicit in the complete title proverb derives from the Sunday School dictum that one would be better advised to prepare before you're dead for the Devil's scrutiny, i.e. so the Devil doesn't care when you're dead. There's no percentage in trying to Beat the Devil. The characters apparently didn't pay attention at Sunday School, and find themselves forced into crisis management, having eschewed crisis avoidance. But even a seasoned CEO would have difficulty managing these crises. Throwing dice is far more unpredictable than flipping a coin; when people are involved, the list of possible outcomes becomes even longer than the long list of unforgettable Sidney Lumet films. Until now, Hawke may not have been an unforgettable actor but here perhaps had an eye toward earning billing among other Lumet All Stars like Steiger and Pacino.",Positive "Basically this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.

The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.

But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.

Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.

So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting through...",Negative "This is full of major spoilers, so beware.

""Prix de Beaute"" always suffers in comparison to the two films Louise Brooks made with G. W. Pabst, ""Pandora's Box"" and ""Diary of a Lost Girl,"" but in some ways, ""Prix"" is the quintessential Brooks film. Here she has a chance to be charming without the dark side of her Pabst collaboration. What ""Prix"" has that the Pabst films don't is music. In this early French film, the whole Louise Brooks mystique is fleshed out powerfully with a conjunction of image, song and music. The Charleston is what seems most associated with Brooks (she was the first to dance it in Europe), but the essence of the actress comes across more strongly in the tango. The tango also plays a plot point in ""Prix,"" being the music she danced with on her short rise to stardom after becoming Miss Europe. Later, when she has forsaken her fame in favor of a mundane existence as the wife of jealous husband Andre, the longing for her forsaken fame becomes apparent when the same tango record is seen on her apartment record player. So appropriate is the tango to Brooks it is used to accompany the documentary about her life, ""Looking for Lulu,"" a film narrated by Shirley Maclaine. The brazen and forceful quality of the tango epitomizes Louise Brooks' strong-headed but elegant and erotic individuality.

The song, ""Je n'ai qu'un amour, c'est toi,"" adds an immense amount of pathos to what is not a great film (but a very good one). By the way, Brooks' voice was not dubbed for the film by Edith Piaf as some have claimed. Piaf was born in 1915, and wasn't discovered until 1935. The song, however, is what Brooks' character, Lucienne, sings to Andre at the beginning of the film to cheer him up and express her deep affection for him. And at the climax it is the song she sings for her screen test, which she views with the producers and managers who intend to shape her career. It continues on screen after husband Andre, who has followed her to the screening room, shoots and kills her. In a single shot, with Lucinenne's dead body in repose at the bottom of the screen while her screen test continues above with the song she once sang to Andre, the essence of what movies do that other art forms do not is perfectly characterized. As Andre watches his now dead wife sing to him on screen, the murder weapon still smoking, he subtly smiles. She is now his forever, and by association, ours.

Coincidentally, Louise Brooks real life career crashed and burned after ""Prix de Beaute,"" so it was also the death of her final starring roll as well. This film really seals the Brooks mystique more so than the Pabst films (which are superior films, no doubt). It also points out what it is about the movies that create the whole idea of the ""cult"" of the movies - where people like Brooks, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe live on more intensely after their death than when they were alive.",Positive "Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own ""mental movie"" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the ""other"" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: ""Sometimes, dead is better.""

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to ""sell"" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.",Positive "Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.

This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.

Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.",Negative "I was but a babe in arms when George Lucas was wowing the world with his out of this world Saga chronicling the adventures of young Luke Skywalker and the notorious Darth Vadar but even today 20 years on I can appreciate the genius that is Lucas and the incredible imagination he's been blessed with. In A New Hope Lucas showed a new way to tell stories as he introduced us to such memorable characters as the plucky Princess Leia, the Rougish Han Solo and the spirited Luke Skywalker as well as that best loved of villains, the sinister Darth Vadar. In The Empire Strikes Back he went all out to show us Special Effects can add to a tale and managed to something no-one thought you could do on screen. He made a film with no specific end or beginning and it went down a treat. Return of the Jedi is a fitting end to a Saga that will stand the test of time.

When The Empire Srtikes Back ended with encasing of the lovable Rouge Han Solo in Carbonite to be delivered to Jabba the Hut and young Luke reeling from the discovery of a terrible truth about his Father we were left with the feeling that things were going from bad to worse. Vadar it seemed had won the day. How we asked could the rebels ever recover from this blow? In Lucas stunning and captivating final chapter we are kept on the edges of our seats from Han's daring rescue from Jabba's palace to the the final climactic battle on the Death Star between Luke and Vadar as Luke struggles between fulfilling his duties as a Jedi and rebel fighter and attempting to reawaken the good he believes is still in his Father's soul.

Old friends like the smooth talking Lando Calrissian and the ever lovable Chewbacca reunite for one final battle to end all battles as a new darker more dangerous enemy emerges in the form of the Emperor himself ( played by the brilliant Ian McDiarmiud.How he missed out on an Oscar is a mystery.) desperate to turn Luke to the Dark Side even if it means betraying his apprentice Darth Vadar.All in black with his red eyes,ghostly white disfigured face and sinister laugh he truly is a terrifying addition to the story and is the undisputed Master of the events that unfold. His new and improved Death Star spells disaster for the rebels but the brave group launch one last desperate attack to end the Empire's reign for good.

Lucas managed to incorporate three different stories at once and keep the action going so that the audience is riveted. We watch in excitement as Han and Leia attempt to bring down the shield around the Death Star from the forest Moon of Endor with the help of some adorable Ewoks ( who I really do not believe take from the movie at all. In fact I feel they provide a sort reprieve from the tension of the battles at and in the Death Star) and hindered by legions of Stormtroopers and Imperial Officers. We cheer on Lando and the other pilots as they take on the mighty Imperial Fleet and risk life and limb to fly into the Deatn Star to destroy it once and for all. And we watch with bated breath as Vadar and the Emperor attempt to turn Luke to the Dark Side while he in turn tries to turn his Father back.

But for me the most difficult and yet compelling battles is that going on inside Darth Vadar. For ROTJ is a battle of emotions and feelings. Vadar is caught between his loyalty to the Emporer and the Empire and his Fatherly inclinations to Luke. Never did I think that a mask could show emotion but some-how one can't but see the confusion and pain on Vadar's face during the final scenes as the Emporer turns on Luke. There is more depth and emotion to Vadar than I believed a villain, especially one more machine then man could have and that I think is what makes him so accessible. He is conflicted. The Apprentice as much as the Master. The Victim as much as the Villain. Without ruining the end too much Vadar's final scene is the most poignant and wonderful in the trilogy.

So in conclusion what can I say. George Lucas is the master of the Saga. Star Wars is the most compelling and engaging Sagas I've seen in a long time and I have yet to see another Saga rival it. Return of the Jedi has all the ingredients necessary to provide the ending Lucas masterpiece deserves. It's action, suspense, romance, tragedy, redemption, joy all rolled into one and it's memorable characters, wonderful special effects and catchy music make both a great movie in its own right and an ending that Lucas can be proud of.",Positive """Most of us at least inhabit two worlds , the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstances and the world within ,the unconscious ,a safe place where we can escape ..."" With those words ,Mr .Gone introduces inside the world of ""The Maxx"" a fascinating world where the fantasy and the reality are combined . Inspired in the comic books of Sam Kieth, ""The Maxx "" is very faithful to the material in what it was inspired , not only in the story but also in the graphic style ,that look like the pages of the comic ,giving this show a surreal and unique appearance . But also ,the story it's interesting and entertaining .At moments it could turn too weird ,but when you got inside it ,it's hard to get out of it . The story and the characters are wonderfully developed . The music goes perfectly with the style of the show and give it the proper atmosphere . Unfortunately , like many good animated shows ,this one was short -lived . ""The Maxx"" is a must see . It 's one of my all -time favorites .",Positive "I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at.",Negative "I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.

I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.

Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.

In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating.",Negative "Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming ""B**ch!"" at women is like screaming ""N**ger!"" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. ""B**ch!"" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos – do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think ""free speech"" is only for men to crap on women???",Negative "Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.

But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity.",Positive "This is an extraordinary film, that tricks you constantly. It seems to be heading toward cliche at several points, and then something astonishing will happen that genuinely startles. It would give away too much to say much more, but stick with this film and you will be richly rewarded. William Haines is absolutely delightful - he is certainly a star that deserves to be re-discovered. The gay subtext in his relationship with Jack Pickford is amazing - there is even a scene where Haines rubs Pickford's chest (Pickford has a cold). Both actors play this sub-text subtlely and with great depth of emotion, so that there are moments that are very moving. And I never thought I could get so involved in a football match as I did in this movie - and I don't even understand the rules! Also excellent is Francis X. Bushman's son Ralph as Haines' rival for the girl (yes, it's not completely a gay movie). Wonderful silent classic - a great example of Twenties commercial cinema with an edge.",Positive "Since the title is in English and IMDb lists this show's primary language as English, i shall concentrate on reviewing the English version of Gundam Wing(2000) as presented in the Bandai released DVD set. My actual review for the whole series is under IMDb's entry of """"Shin kidô senki Gundam W""(1995).

Very little is changed in respect to plot, script and characterization its adaptation to English and it really depends on your own taste to choose which language to watch this show in. Purists can stick to Japanese all they want, but for a more ""realistic"" experience i recommend the English track since all the characters, except Heero Yuy, are not Japanese.(most of them are Caucasian in fact with a couple of non-Japanese Asians.) For one thing, the characters' personalities come across more ""directly"" than in the Japanese version. The contrast between the characters is stronger thanks to some give-or-take performances but a very well cast group of actors.

Wing Gundam's pilot Heero Yuy is a highly trained soldier who suppresses his emotions but slowly learns the value of his humanity. Voiced by Mark Hildreth who's deadpan delivery can be criticized as ""bad acting"" but it matches Heero's personality very well.

Deathscythe Gundam's Duo Maxwell, ever cheerful in the face of death is given a crash course in the cherishing the value of life and friends. He is possibly the best acted character in the whole show, masterfully played by Scott McNeil. He may sound a little too old for his age, but Duo's English voice easily out ranks his irritatingly nasal Japanese one.

Trowa, the pilot of Heavyarms, is a lost lonely soul who's only purpose so far has been combat; despite his inner desire to form connections with the people around him, he only knows how to kill, not to befriend. Kirby Morrow gives a somber but realistic performance as Trowa Barton.

Quatre Rebarba Winner is voiced by Brad Swaile who has no trouble brining out the caring nature of the character and the shattering of his innocence as he experiences horrors of war and death first hand. A huge plus point is that Quatre no longer sounds like a girl(and yes he is voiced by a female actress in the Japanese version) but a bona fide typical 15 year old guy.

The impulsive but determined Wufei Chang voiced by Ted Cole may seem a little over-the-top but it plays out in stark contrast to the more subdued roles of Heero and Trowa.

Relena Darlian sounds older in English, voiced by Lisa Ann Bailey. This might not sit well with her youthful personification early in the series but as her character matures later into the story, her voice follows suit and ends up fitting in very well with the character development.

Zechs Merquise would be one of the more drastically changed voices when compared to the Japanese version. Both voices bring out different sides to the same character. His Japanese voice is haughty, authoritative and commands respect , keeping in line with his high ranking status and charismatic nature. His English voice by Brian Drummond is more subdued, sounding more devious and ""snake-like"", highlighting Zechs' secretive nature regarding his hidden agendas and staunch beliefs in his ideals.

The members of OZ are a mixed bag really. Treize Kushrenada voiced by David Kaye is given a more realistic and down-to-earth performance compared to his larger-than-life Japanese style of speaking. However, Lady Une does not convey her split personality as contrastingly as in the Japanese version and Lucrencia Noin just sounds.........bored most of the time. The cannon fodder pilots and military leaders are nothing to speak of either.

I would have appreciated if they took the time to give different characters different accents to reflect their ethnic backgrounds. The Maganac Corp's voices were generally uninspired but could have been more interesting if they were given middle eastern accents. The members of the Romerfeller Foundation would have also sounded better with some classy European accent that reflects their status of nobility.

Despite underwhelming acting from the side characters, the main cast manage to carry the show and it results in an overall less over-the-top and more realistic rendition of Gundam Wing's script. Very faithful to the original Japanese script, keeping all the underlying thought provoking ideas and themes about politics, war and human nature. Sadly, it also retains the flaws of the original Japanese script.",Positive "One of the very best Three Stooges shorts ever. A spooky house full of evil guys and ""The Goon"" challenge the Alert Detective Agency's best men. Shemp is in top form in the famous in-the-dark scene. Emil Sitka provides excellent support in his Mr. Goodrich role, as the target of a murder plot. Before it's over, Shemp's ""trusty little shovel"" is employed to great effect. This 16 minute gem moves about as fast as any Stooge's short and packs twice the wallop. Highly recommended.",Positive "Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).

R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.

The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential.",Negative """The house of the spirits"" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in ""The house..."". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence.",Negative "After seeing the poster from the film Smother,I knew I was about to live one of those intolerable film experiences which make me want to take my eyes out.However,I felt a slight optimism because the movie had a solid cast which I thought it was going to rescue the movie.Unfortunately that did not happen.Smother is a horrible movie,but it is not execrable.That is the best I can say about it.

The screenplay from Smother (written by the same guys from License to Wed,something which explains they have anything but talent for writing movies) is full of cheap and predictable humor.Seriously,I did not laugh even once watching this film.Besides,the solid cast I previously mentioned is absolutely wasted.After the big number of garbage she has been involved in (like the monumentally atrocious and execrable Because I Said So),some people may think the career from Diane Keaton is extinguishing.However,it is impossible for me to forget the excellent performances she has brought in previous decades,on films like Annie Hall or Baby Boom.On Smother,she makes her best effort with her performance,but her character is so horribly written she cannot do anything with it.Dax Shepard has left on me a good impression with his solid performances on the films Baby Mama and Idiocracy.However,he does what he can with his character.Mike White also makes a good effort,but he does not reach too far away.He is a very talented screenwriter (like he has shown on films like The Good Girl and School of Rock),so I would have liked to see he was one of the screenwriters from this movie,instead of only acting on it.Liv Tyler suffers from the same situation of all the previously mentioned actors : being wasted.

The worst fail from Smother is being absolutely boring and unfunny.Its screenplay is nothing more than a collection of forced scenes and situations we have seen on sit-coms.Stay far away from this crappy comedy.",Negative "OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:

A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage",Negative "Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease!",Negative "Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A ""Rashamon"" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth.",Positive "This is one of those movies that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!",Negative "Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS ""orbits"" in time around their ""perfect day."" The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.

The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out ""You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?"" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, ""The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it""--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, ""What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?"" and ""You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet.""

The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.

The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.

Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey.",Negative "The man who directed 'The Third Man' also directed the 'Who Will Buy' sequence in ""Oliver!"" Now that is talent.

I raise my hat to Carol Reed.

I know there are 'second units' involved, but still ...

And he had to deal with Orson Welles and Oliver Reed ...

I suppose quality will out.

(It does show in the final scene with Nancy [ avoiding spoiler - everyone has to see Oliver! for the first time sometime ].) How many lines do I need to type.

Encouraging people to type too much is not to be encouraged.

I hope this counts as the ""10th line"".",Positive "One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an ""arthouse"" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.

If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.",Negative "The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.

The movie continues throughout to ""Hollywood-ise"" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.

All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain.",Negative "John Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his ""Gumbas"" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of ""West Side Story"" while the other guys were doing a low-rent ""Mean Streets"". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means ""Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club.

",Negative "Bette Midler is again Divine! Raunchily humorous. In love with Burlesque. Capable of bringing you down to tears either with old jokes with new dresses or merely with old songs with more power & punch than ever. All in All Singing new ballads, power-singing the good old/perennial ones such as ""The Rose""; ""Stay With Me"" and yes, even ""Wind Beneath My Wings"". The best way to appreciate the Divine Miss M has always been libe - since this is the next best thing to it, I strongly recommended to all with a mixture of adult wide-eyed enchantment and appreciation and a child's mischievous wish for pushing all boundaries!",Positive "Very funny to watch ""Beretta's Island"" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!",Negative "I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up.",Positive "Heartland was in production about the same time as Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate - Heartland cost a fraction to make but is 10 times the piece of film.

Heaven's Gate was ""the biggest and most expensive ($40 mil in 1980!) Hollywood flops of all time, its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM"" -imdb entry

Heartland cost a few hundred thousand dollars and benefits from great writing, direction, photography and acting. It easily draws you into the beauty, joys, hardships and sorrow of pioneer life.

It's sad that Hollywood sometimes would pour millions into turkeys (based on a director's single big hit) and neglect such a wonderful story.",Positive this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.

its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably

this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.

Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.,Negative "Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.

""Savage Island"" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""Ilha de Sangue"" (""Island of Blood"")",Negative "The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. ""The Lonely Lady"" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.",Negative "Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.

When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.

The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.

It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.

I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened.",Positive "I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time.",Positive "This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....",Negative "First of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself.",Negative "It's hard to say anything about a movie like this because there isn't enough words to give this magnificent, stylish and unique film the veneration it unquestionably deserves. They should make this the official and only true real Hamlet -movie because all the previous films out of the same immortal spectacle are being overshadowed by Kenneth Branagh's ""Hamlet"".

It's a perfect, complete version of the play, potent, massive, earthshaking first-class masterpiece Shakespeare would have been proud of. They've packed over a dozen of world-famous top actors in the same film and everyone of them is having one of the greatest performances of their career. Every moving and charming sequence leaves behind a comprehensive sense of satisfaction.

The cameras embrace gracefully the enchanting coulisses. Branagh is phenomenal in the leading role. His sharp, irresistible performance is the only one of it's kind and will be permanently part of the glorious movie history. Every second in this presentation is feast for the movie lover from beginning to the very end. Branagh's version of ""Hamlet"" is among the ten best motion pictures ever.",Positive "On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.

I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, ""Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la"" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting""). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.

Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:

1. Harris Jeyaraj

2. Harris Jeyaraj

3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it.

4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.

5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus ""thriller"". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.

6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.

7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish (""Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok""), of course with nauseating effect.

8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. ""Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?"" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). ""Can't he just use his gun?"" (""The guy on a bike"" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.

9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a ""Police Report"" or ""Kuttram"". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!

10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.",Negative "I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.

The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.

My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.",Positive "I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed.",Negative "What were they thinking at ""Cannes""? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up ""Tumbleweeds"" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.",Negative "I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors ""funny"" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.",Negative "This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)

I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.

This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.",Negative "TACHIGUI: THE AMAZING LIVES OF THE FAST-FOOD GRIFTERS Japanese title: Tachiguishi Retsuden

Director: Mamoru Oshii Featuring: Toshio Suzuki, Mako Hyodo, Kenji Kawai, Shinji Higuchi, Katsuya Terada Narrated by Koichi Yamadera ----------------------------------------

Way back in 1995, Mamoru Oshii unleashed his dazzling animation feature Ghost In The Shell, which helped consolidate anime's international acceptance - and also burrowed itself into Andy and Larry Wachowski's overall concept for The Matrix.

The movie's sequel, Innocence (2004), was the inaugural Japanese animated film to compete for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and it left heads spinning as much for its style and innovative effects as for its oft unfathomable plot.

Always the trendsetter, Oshii has now presented us with Tachigui: The Amazing Lives Of The Fast-Food Grifters – which has absolutely nothing to do with Ghost In The Shell, nor Japanese anime for that matter.

Say hello to Oshii's creation ""superlivemation"": not quite animation, nor exactly live-action. Instead the cast endured somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 snapshots, which were digitally processed and reconstituted in a deceptively simple paper cut-out fashion reminiscent of Balinese puppetry. The movement itself is a stilted, stop-motion style that echoes sequences from Shinya Tsukamoto's experimental Tetsuo: Iron Man (1988).

""I couldn't think of any method but this one,"" said Oshii in a recent interview with The Daily Yomiuri. ""I realized that this project was not suitable for traditional animation.""

The cast choice is equally enigmatic. Kenji Kawai - who also composed the superlative soundtrack - appears as a ravenous burger fanatic, while renowned Studio Ghibli producer Toshio Suzuki spends his screen time being murdered in bizarre fashion. Others include Katsuya Terada, who dabbled with Oshii on Blood: The Last Vampire, and Shinji Higuchi - a special effects whiz who's worked on Godzilla movies.

Koichi Yamadera's narration sounds like the stuff of a dry NHK documentary – which belies the comic undertone here as well as Yamadera's extensive career voicing stoic anime characters like Spike Siegel in Cowboy Bebop.

And the plot itself is a bizarre re-imagining of post-WWII Japan in the context of various fast-food off-shoots - from soba ramen shops to gyudon stand-up bars; American dogs in the heat-up trays of convenience stores to McDonalds- inspired burger-chain restaurants. ""Food is a primal root of desire,"" asserted Oshii, by way of explanation.

Thrown into the mix is a new breed of consumer: the fast-food grifters of the title, people who don't like to pay for their tucker and are constantly fine-tuning their elaborate scams to score free munchies.

Oshii said his ulterior motive was homage to the ""art"" of eating food on the streets – something still considered a bit of a taboo in this country, and which goes some way toward explaining the use of ""tachigui"" in the title.

The director of live-action movies (Avalon, Stray Dog) as well as animation, Oshii has often blurred the definition between the two mediums. The celluloid result here is deposited somewhere in the grey area between both formats.

At times the visual experiment here is as exhilarating as it can be irritating. Just don't ask what it's all really supposed to mean; Oshii's films, which are equal parts cerebral and innovative, are often not particularly clear story-wise. Where Oshii succeeds is via a liberal dose of black humor – here you'll find Kentucky Fried Rat, death by hula-hoop, the world's fastest samurai burger chef – and in the movie's very nature of surrealism.

This is a man who defers to the influence of filmmakers like Godard and Truffaut, and perhaps owes as much to Andrei Tarkovsky as he does David Lynch. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that at one stage a B-52 bomber does a fly- through in a Yoshinoya look-alike franchise. The 54-year-old writer-director seemed to think this natural. ""The Japan I depicted in the movie may not necessarily be faithful to reality,"" he suggested.

Of course. --------------

By Andrez Bergen",Positive "Films starring child actors put themselves on the back foot from the very beginning. While there are some exceptions, the majority of kids just cant act and even the ones that can normally become annoying after a few minutes. The kids in Paperhouse have managed to capture the worst of both worlds, as they're both very annoying and they don't have an ounce of acting ability between them. In short; they're rubbish. This isn't good considering that they're the leads, and it especially isn't good when you consider the fact that it is virtually impossible to take this film seriously because of the rubbish actors. It's a shame that this film is such a dead loss as the plot isn't (not completely). It follows a young girl who, after drawing a picture of a house in her notebook, wakes up in the fantasy world that she has created. It soon becomes apparent to her that she can manipulate this world through her drawings, and so sets about making various changes, until her dream eventually becomes a nightmare. Oh dear.

As you can see, this plot line gives a nice base for a good fantasy horror movie. However, it is squandered through a number of fatal faults. First and foremost, in spite of the premise being an excellent premise for lots of inventiveness; the movie is extremely stale. The central plot is hardly played with at all, and the result is an entirely boring experience. The lack of tension is another huge gaping flaw in the movie, as it sees fit to drag every sequence out to a point that you just don't care any more (which is due to a lack of ideas). Thanks in part to it's lead characters, the film feels like a kids movie throughout. This is to be expected as it stars kids, but Bernard Rose should have decided the slant that he wanted to put on the story; as the horror in the movie is laughable at best. The film is also very cheesy, and the 'romance' between the two leads is extremely cringe-worthy, and makes for very painful viewing. In fact, if I had to sum this travesty up in one word, I would choose 'painful'. Paperhouse is poorly acted, laughably plotted, very corny and dull on the whole. Save yourself the pain, see something else.",Negative "I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives.

Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point.

Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score.

For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them?

Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad.

I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed.",Negative "Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.",Positive "I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice.",Negative "A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended.",Positive "THE ODD COUPLE is the classic film version of Neil Simon's most famous play about a TV newswriter named Felix Unger, who is an obsessive neat freak, who moves in with his divorced best friend, Oscar Madison, a sportswriter and complete slob, after his wife Frances throws him out of their apartment. Already divorced, Oscar takes his best friend in and regrets it from the moment he does it. Neil Simon's classic comedy first came to Broadway with Art Carney playing Felix and Walter Matthau playing Oscar. Jack Lemmon takes over for Carney in the film version with a memorable performance as Felix Unger. Lemmon is not only terribly funny in the role but so vividly real that he brings an element of melancholy to the pitiful figure that is Felix Unger. Matthau, fortunately, was allowed to recreate his role as Oscar, a one-of-a-kind gem of comic performance that provides consistent laughs throughout. This teaming of Lemmon and Matthau turned out to be comic gold that was re-visited in nine other films. With both of these actors no longer with us, the viewing of this classic becomes more touching but no less hilarious. Simon's play has been nicely expanded for the screen with a silent prologue chronicling a depressed Felix's suicide attempt that is a winner. The supporting cast includes Herb Edelman, John Fiedler, Larry Haines, and David Sheiner as Oscar's poker playing buddies and Moncia Evans and Carole Shelley as the Piedgon Sisters, blind dates of Oscar and Felix. Of course, it later became an excellent TV series with Tony Randall and Jack Klugman, but there's nothing like the original. A joy from start to finish.",Positive "You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.

I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.

Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.

Best not to look this one up.",Negative "This is by far the most incredible movie I have seen in a long time. The actors gave wonderful portrayals of the characters in the movie. The story was accurately portrayed. The story starts out with a young woman from the British Isles and her father traveling by steamboat to Nauvoo, Illinois. She has become a member of the LDS Church and he has not. He thinks she is ridiculous for making the trip and is discouraging. She encourages him to read about Joseph Smith, the Prophet. This is where the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith begins. The movie accurately portrays his life and some of the history of the LDS Church at the same time. It was graphic at times, but was needed. The emotional expression was very believable, which caused my emotions to spill out. Filming was awesome. The way in which the story was presented was touching. After the movie was over, we just sat there unable to moved. I was stunned. For people who know very little of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, I would encourage you to see this. If nothing else but to gain some understanding of his life. For those who are members of the Church, I would encourage you to see it. It will increase your testimony of this most incredible man. This is a must see.",Positive "I like films that don't provide the typical ""happy ending,"" and that's my main reason for my liking of this movie. Alice Marano (Danes) and her best friend Darlene (Beckinsale) are arrested in Thailand for narcotics smuggling after a tip anonymously phoned in to the Thai authorities. The film does a solid job of keeping viewers guessing as to whether (or which) of the girls was involved, and Bill Pullman is perfect as their sleazy lawyer. Jacqueline Kim turns in a terrific performance as his more kind, magnanimous wife, Yon, who is also an attorney. I wish the girls had been abused more in the prison, as another commenter has suggested, as I've heard that Thai prisons can be quite brutal. Where this film grabs me, however, is its ending. Alice subjects herself to a sentence of 96 years in total so that Darlene can be pardoned, and we (the viewers) realize that they are both innocent. Any film that defies my expectation of the ending wins extra points with me, and this well-acted drama is certainly deserving.",Positive "Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how the did it. I can't wait till this comes out on DVD. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it.",Positive "Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.",Positive "Muscular man-ape in the jungles of Africa is hunted by an opportunistic expedition team; the comely daughter of the team's leader finds him first. Much-ballyhooed version of the Tarzan tale has an OK production, but is crippled by the single-handedly worst direction of a film I have ever seen. John Derek is bereft of inspiration beyond cheesy slow-motion action shots and peek-a-boo glimpses of wife Bo Derek's unclothed body; he has about as much talent behind the camera as Ed Wood. Trying for tongue-in-cheek sexuality, the Dereks lack finesse, snappy timing, and taste. They have a sense of self-parody and bravura abandonment (they do throw caution to the winds), but after a promising opening it all goes to hell. Miles O'Keeffe (who possibly had marbles in his mouth the entire time) has the title role, but plays third fiddle to John Derek's ego and Bo Derek's sense of self-importance. * from ****",Negative "In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.

Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.

Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.

In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.",Negative "Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not ""go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to."" Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to ""the real cemetery"": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.",Positive "I do not expect this film to be well understood by viewers out of Romania. This tells something certainly about the value, or maybe about the lack of universality of the film, but also tells something about how different history and even life of common people was in Romania compared to other countries, even in Eastern Europe.

The film is an adaptation of a novel by Marin Preda, a controversial novelist who died during the Communist rule soon after the book was published. It tells the story of an intellectual, professor of philosophy whose life is crushed after he is imprisoned on false accusations at the end of the Stalinist era. Basically the first part of the film tells the story of his fight for survival in prison, the second describes his tentative to regain his life after being released. His release is actually only apparent, Romania of the 60s asks from him different types of compromises and crimes, but yet his fight for survival is as tough morally as in prison.

The film is splendidly acted by some of the best Romanian actors. Stefan Iordache who has the lead role would be in another time and another place a mega-star, we can get here a good glimpse of his fabulous acting art. Although suffering from a hesitant story-telling and falling sometimes in non-essential details or character comics, the film is still an important landmark for the Romanian cinema, as well as for the process of recovering the moral and historic values in the Romanian society.",Positive "I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!",Negative "I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of ""Byron"" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was ""mad bad and dangerous to know"", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.

I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.

Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.

I think the BBC lost its nous with this one",Negative "This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called ""fantafestival"".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.",Negative "The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui",Positive "i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.

i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. ""chucky"" and ""silent hill"" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.

it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend ""beyond belief"" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.",Negative "If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real ""fought"" in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an ""ill-fated destiny"" is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between ""Stand By Me"" and ""Saving Private Ryan."" What do men do when they are with a situation that's ""hard pressed"" in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing ""The best film of the year,"" and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10.",Positive "There are some elements that save this movie from being a total catastrophe, but are overshadowed with bad acting, plot holes, deus ex machina thrown ins, stupid dialogs, weak script, and predictable clichés...

What we have here is a horror movie with a storyline that goes nowhere for most of the time. A group of unlikely heroes including a black guy that gets it first (yeah, that cliché seems to be still very much alive even in Finland), seem to have trouble trying to exit a mysteriously empty hospital. There are shrieking ghosts (very imaginative), zombies (at one point I thought at least they didn't use zombies, but they came), and Finnish glam-rock band with demonic make-up on, getting in their way. There is also some time-shift doodle present, but it adds up nothing to the storyline. Autistic girl and a hobo seem to have some deeper understanding of a situation, but they never spell it out to the viewer, or their confused friends. Their lines consist only of profound life lesson thoughts like: ""What happens will happen..."" or ""Light can't live in the darkness..."" or the ominous ""I need a red crayon... red crayon."" So all this characters (including worried father and sweet doctor in distress types) end up doing is running around them dark floors, and from or mistakenly to the demons. Occasionally a ghost or a group of zombies show up, and if it seems a demon keyboardist can't spot a group of six people coming towards it, waving a flashlight and conversing, it was just pretending. And apparently this demon can break through walls without much hassle, but opening elevator door is beyond its capabilities.

In the end we even get a ""it was all a dream"" sequence twist. Or maybe it wasn't. Oh, boy I wish this movie was, and that kind that makes time seem to move faster so it all plays out in just 10 minutes or so...",Negative In Micro Phonies the stooges are at there best. In this short the trio are handymen working in a recording studio. They end up getting a look at Alice Van Doren (Christine Mcintyre)singing the voice of spring. The voice is amazing. Curly in drags is heard by Mrs. Bixby (Symona Boniface). Moe calls Curly Senior Cucaracha. The three stooges end up going to party where Curly is going to dress up in drags. They play a record of the voices of spring and all is going well until Moe destroy the record on Curly's head. They end up using the lucia sexlet until the baritone recognizes them and unplugs it. Alice Van Doren catches on to the boy scream and hides behind a curtain to help them out. All is well until the baritone wonders how Curly is singing without the aid of a phonograph discovers Alice behind the curtain. The three stooges are revealed to be frauds but Alice's father discovers his daughter's talent and agrees that she should become a singer. The stooge are pelted out of the room. Excellent.,Positive "To anyone who might think this show isn't for them, please give it a try. Network television has degenerated into shows that are clones of clones or are reality based shows featuring some often unreal people. This show is a return to family oriented TV where the emphasis is on learning some life lessons, learning what real friends and family are about, and maybe even learning a little bit about our national pastime. Jeremy Sumpter is one of the most appealing young actors in show business today, and he is perfectly cast as the young, slightly naive new batboy for the fictional New York Empires (great name!). Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham, and Kirsten Storms round out the main cast, and they are all exceptional. This show deserves a chance to catch on and be seen. Hopefully it will stick around for a few seasons and we can watch Pete Young (Sumpter's character) learn and grow.",Positive "Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.

Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.

Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.

If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.",Negative "Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.

The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through ""zombification"". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.

For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the ""zombies revolted"", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I ""entertained"" myself throughout most of the movie.

I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)",Negative "I had the privilege of watching ""Holly"" at the Edinburgh Film Festival last week. What a powerful and moving story! Holly is a 12 yr old Vietnamese girl who is sold into prostitution by her own family and living in a brothel in Cambodia. Patrick (an American) comes into Holly's life and decides he wants to help her. When Holly is sold again, Patrick desperately searches for her. We follow they're difficult journey through Cambodia and hope for their reunion.

Holly is one of millions of children who are sold and trafficked every day. The movie portrays this difficult issue without crossing the line. I walked away wanting to know more about the issue of child trafficking and asking how can I help? This movie should be seen by everyone because it is a beautiful story and it exposes an issue that we should no longer ignore.",Positive "I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.",Negative "JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.

Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.

Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.

Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.

The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.

He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.

I think... film over....

Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used ""white guilt"" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.

now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.

That was one weird film.

So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.

Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.

Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.",Negative "It really is a shame that films like this never snag Best Picture nominations, because this one is simply a winner. This is by far the most consistently hilarious comedy I have ever seen. Its screenplay and design are impeccable, not to mention the incredible cast. I can quote this movie for hours on end. Watch it.",Positive "What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed!",Positive "I'm an admirer of Hal Hartley's films, especially 1997's ""Henry Fool."" ""Fay Grim"" is a sequel to that film, and has a similar style and sense of humor. The plot, however, is completely different. Fay Grim (played brilliantly by the iconic Parker Posey) tries to track down her missing husband's notebooks, and finds herself amid conspiracies and espionage. The supporting cast (most of the folks from the first film as well as Jeff Goldblum, Saffron Burrows, and a much-welcomed return from 90s indie-darling Elina Lowensohn) is excellent and the film has lots of surprises. The director claims this is part of a ""Star Wars""-like trilogy, serving as the ""Empire Strikes Back"" of the series If this is true, I can't wait to see the third installment! I just hope I don't have to wait 10 more years for it.",Positive "Well. this was not a surprise. many people will tell you this is gory. but they are all talking ""shiztz"" this film is very slow.

It starts off with some guy who makes a concoction to feel no pain he calls it ""my son"" there is some gory scenes but i found them kind of weak. you might as well skip 40 minutes of the movie and get to the eyeball scene which was surprisingly impressive and sickening. there is some really stupid scenes in this. and they dub over the hits and slaps with stupid fake slapping sound which makes me laugh! i would not recommend it. keep looking gore hounds.

check this out if you want the like 20-10 minute ending scene which still is not that amazing and has a random scene of the guy trying to like rape his mum.. yeah its weird.",Negative "How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!",Negative "First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.

The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.

It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.

I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful ""crush"" on an older boy that he admires.

However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating ""well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes..."")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.

Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.

Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of ""Leah"" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.

As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the ""Leah"" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.

I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a ""gay"" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the ""crush"" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe ""crushes"" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners.",Negative "Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another.

The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams ""seriously, you could do better yourself"". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?

I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.",Negative "I think that this film adds to diversity and is very accurate in terms of historic reconstruction. The way it shows the various communities leaving together in Thailand is very interesting...The Portuguese, the Japanese, and the various communities being managed by the king. The plots around the court are as usual a struggle for power with a lot of treason. The wardrobe is fine. The film is also done locally in Thailand in a reasonable production. The scene with the elefant as executors is very interesting. It is fun and I think that is also usable in schools for its historic accuracy because it shows that the European in Asia were subjects of the local kings in way very different from the traditional Hollywood perspective.",Positive "I'll keep this short, as I know I don't need to say much.

""Alive"" is a strange little film that obviously appeals to some, but I found it to be shockingly bland from almost the very beginning. The film did very little to make any of the characters likable and the story at times became so convoluted that I completely lost interest. As I said, I know others enjoyed it, but I found Kitamura's ""Alive"" to be anything but - a lame, extremely boring drama disguised as a thought-provoking action sci-fi flick. I felt like I was suckered into watching this film, based by its intriguing premise and uber-exciting cover art.

My suggestion? Pass it up for Kitamura's far more enjoyable freshman effort ""Versus"" or his 2004 riot ""Godzilla: Final Wars"".

...And don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good thinking man's film, but this certainly wasn't it. There was nary a moment that I actually cared about a single event taking place in this overly-preachy, dialogue-heavy movie.

If you wanna talk about something... talk about boring.",Negative "The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few ""heart-wrenching"" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a ""Leave it to Beaver"" world?",Positive "Do NOT judge this production by the 2-hour version that was released on VHS in the US, which is a choppy and incomprehensible mess. I had the pleasure of watching the full-length 6-hour version available on DVD from the UK, and was spellbound. The deliberate pace and growing sense of menace are mesmerizing, as is the amazing visual and aural landscape; this is an ancient Rome we have never seen before, and far more authentic than most.

Director Franco Rossi was justly celebrated for his 1968 mini-series of The Odyssey, and this mini-series is equally powerful. Just as Bekim Fehmiu became the screen's best Ulysses, so Klaus Maria Brandauer may be the screen's best Nero. Now, I am hoping someday to see Rossi's version of The Aeneid (Eneide) that was broadcast on Italian TV in 1971.

I am undecided which version of QUO VADIS is more powerful, this one or the Polish mini-series from 2001; each has different virtues, and in many ways they complement one another. Certainly, either one towers over that Hollywood camp-riot starring Peter Ustinov.",Positive "I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.

But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.",Negative "This movie is chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.

Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of ""Deewar"" and ""On the Waterfront"" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.

Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.

Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously.",Negative "i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.",Negative "The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: ""This is almost too beautiful."" And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does.",Positive "Saw this movie twice at community screenings and really loved it. I work in the Jane Finch community and feel the film really captured some of the essence and flavour of the community - grit, determination, exuberance, creativity, in your faceness with a dose of desperation. The writing, dialogue and acting is solid and I really found myself drawn into the story of the young woman Raya as she struggles to pursue her goals and not lose herself in the process. Great dance sequences and it is not only the bodies that move smoothly and with electricity but the camera moves with great fluidity and intelligence as well. All the characters are multi dimensional - none wholly good or bad and the women characters are admirably strong. This is a film that has a strong beating heart and celebrates the irrepressible spirit of youth, hip hop and communities like Jane Finch.",Positive "This film is a perfect example of the recent crop of horror films that simply are not fully realized. There are two routes to take in horror films: either you don't really explain what's going on (or who the killer is, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or give the characters a lot of back story and characterization so that everything is explained (Halloween could potentially be an example of this).

Unfortunately, Creep fails in this area. I see absolutely no reason to give a small shred of the back story for Craig without fully capturing the essence of his character or his motivation. No character is fully realized, although the circular nature of Kate's character in the film is the most accomplished part of the story.

In the end, this story is mostly unmotivated and none of the performances give it the necessary life to make it enthralling or interesting enough to overcome the lack of context and empty film-making that drag down the film.

This film will go down as another example of a film (as most are) that could be so much better even though it would never be great. The only thing that was used properly in the film was the setting: the characters, story, direction, and overall writing would have benefited from a serious face lift.

Creep does serve a purpose as a mindless, silly horror movie with no intellectual or emotional investment, but sadly, that's about it...",Negative "SPOILERS

Tom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into ""others.""

Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.

Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.

7/10",Positive "Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients.",Positive "After having seen Deliverance, movies like Pulp Fiction don't seem so extreme. Maybe by today's blood and bullets standards it doesn't seem so edgy, but if you think that this was 1972 and that the movie has a truly sinister core then it makes you think differently.

When I started watching this movie nothing really seemed unusual until I got to the ""Dueling Banjos"" scene. In that scene the brutality and edge of this film is truly visible. As I watched Drew(Ronny Cox,Robocop)go head to head with a seemingly retarted young boy it really shows how edgy this movies can get. When you think that the kid has a small banjo, which he could of probably made by hand, compared to Drew's nice expensive guitar, you really figure out just how out of their territory the four men are.

As the plot goes it's very believable and never stretches past its limits. But what really distinguishes this film, about four business men who get more than they bargained for on a canoe trip, is that director John Boorman(Excalibur) breaks all the characters away from plain caricatures or stereotypes. So as the movie goes into full horror and suspense I really cared about all four men and what would happen to them.

The acting is universally excellent. With Jon Voight(Midnight Cowboy, Enemy of the State) and Burt Reynolds(Boogie Nights, Striptease) leading the great cast. Jon Voight does probably the hardest thing of all in this film and that is making his transformation from family man to warrior very believable. Unlike Reynolds whose character is a warrior from the start, Voight's character transforms over the course of the movie. Ned Beatty(Life) is also good in an extremely hard role, come on getting raped by a hillbilly, while Ronny Cox turns in a believable performance.

One thing that really made this movies powerful for me is that the villains were as terrifying as any I had ever seen. Bill Mckinney and Herbert ""Cowboy"" Coward were excellent and extremely frightening as the hillbilly's.

Overall Deliverance was excellent and I suggest it to anyone, except for people with weak stomachs and kids. 10/10. See this movie.",Positive "This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills (""Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe"", ""I don't believe one iota in the birds flu"", ""Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves"") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target!

What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, ""The Foreign Legion"" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called ""director"" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as ""cinematographic language"", ""means of expression"" or ""style""). The acting is positively ""Cântarea României"" (""Romania's Chant"") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.

The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called ""jury"" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.",Negative "When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that.",Negative "The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.

In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.

The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.

Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.",Negative "This movie explores the difficulties that strain hopes, dreams, love and friendship, and incorporates humour beautifully. Along with a stunning cast and brilliant filming, the sound track enhances and amplifies the atmosphere and mood of this work of art. All actors and actresses give an extremely good performance, surpassing expectation in every way. Parminder Nagra is brought on to the big screen for the first time in this film, and she is exceptional, capturing the vividness and vitality that this movie is all about. Keira Knightly also works well with her co-stars, and this is her best work so far.

All in all, this is brilliant film, and one that everyone should make the effort to see at least once.",Positive "This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.

This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie ""production"" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.

I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering ""Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!""

In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)

One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.

One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.",Negative "I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.",Positive "A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie ""She is destined to become a legend"" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!",Negative "This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.

Make it so...",Positive "Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.

This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.

See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.",Positive "I read that this did not well, that the story is not solid, that Volckman feels he has failed in some way.

I disagree. First, it is well executed. Volckman is doing well to not only to try a new technique, but to have a focus that is worth thinking about: would immortality reduce the value of life? Big question ...

I can see he trying hard to build a feeling, and he is not compromising. This is to be applauded. I am sure it was an interesting exercise to build characters in such a form. I have seen artists reduce a form to bare minimum to build the intensity of a moment. I identify this film with this.

Further, it is much more interesting than Richard Linklater's roto-scoping, and Volckman's story has more meaning than Linklater's later stories of a wasted life on drugs. Old news. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it. Renaissance has more to offer, something new to think about. And there are many more stories out there with loads of holes in them that do far better.

Well done, Volckman. Really nice work.",Positive "An unassuming, subtle and lean film, ""The Man in the White Suit"" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.

The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired ""Kind Hearts and Coronets"" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...

The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.

Rating:- **** 1/2/*****",Positive "Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realised. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians.

Bonus material on the DVD makes for very interesting viewing. Gilliam was under more than normal pressure to bring the film in under budget, which is no particular surprise after the 'Munchausen' debacle and in light of his later attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. I would rate the 'making of' documentary as one of the more interesting I've seen. It certainly is no whitewash and accurately observes the difficulties and occasional conflict arising between the creative people involved. Gilliam's description of the film as his ""7½th"" release, on account of the film being written by writers other than himself - and therefore, not really 'his' film' - doesn't do the film itself justice.

Brad Pitt's portrayal of Goines is curiously engaging, although his character is not especially sympathetic. Watch for his slightly wall-eyed look in one of the scenes from the asylum. It's disturbing and distracting.

Probably a coincidence, the Louis Armstrong song 'What a Wonderful World' was used at the end of both '12 Monkeys' and the final episode of the TV series of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Both the film and the TV series also featured British actor Simon Jones.

'12 Monkeys' is a science fiction story that will entertain in the same way that the mental stimulation of a game of chess may entertain. It's not a mindless recreation, that's for sure.",Positive "Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003...

To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.

No stars.",Negative "Fido is a story about more well mannered zombies who have been trained to serve the human race. All falls apart though, when young Timmy's zombie Fido eats the family neighbor. From then on, disaster (well, maybe not disaster, but to some extent, chaos) occurs. Most of the people treat their zombies with fairness, and one such character sleeps with his zombie (very funny part of the movie, if not also very disturbing too). And we find the loving Fido whatever he may do. This is a very funny and unique film, especially for the zombie genre. It is also probably one of the least violent of zombie movies (no negativity in this statement). I very much recommend it to people who are looking for something funny and different. I rate this 8/10. Rated R for zombie related violence",Positive "This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.

Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him!",Positive "How can a movie be both controversial and gentle? This one does it with a near-perfect structure. No one wants their daughters to be athletes. Apparently most cultures don't want their daughters to be small-breasted, either. Here we see a bunch of superb actors we've never heard of before portray folks of different cultures living fairly humdrum lives until their female children want to, and have the potential to, become professional soccer players. The structure around the parallelism of the two cultures is wonderful. There is no condescension. Both cultures are seen as modern and valid. (And yes, both are silly, too). One flaw: the Hindu wedding ceremony seemed to involve hundreds of relatives but not one child among them.",Positive "Shakespeare Behind Bars was the most surprising and delightful film I've seen all year. It's about a prison program, somewhere in California if I recall correctly, where the inmates have rehearsed and performed a different Shakespeare play every year for the past 14 years. The film follows their production of ""The Tempest"" from casting through performance, and in the process we learn some pretty amazing things about these men, who are all in for the most serious of crimes. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction -- if anyone tried to adapt this story into a fiction film, the audience would never buy it, but knowing that it's real makes it breathtaking to watch -- literally; I gasped out loud when I learned of one particularly gifted felon's crime. It's like some loopy episode of Oz, and all the more entertaining because the characters and their bizarre stories are real.",Positive "So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.

The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.

The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings ""With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now"" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.",Negative "This movie should be called ""plan 9 from joseph smith."" i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's ""the population bomb (1968),"" and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of ""heavenly father's"" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?

This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the ""pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.

it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!

ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!

",Negative "This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage.",Negative "80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about ""men,"" disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The ""story"" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.",Negative "I'm not sure quite why I clicked ""contains spoiler"", because quite honestly there is not enough explanation ever given in the movie to know enough of what is supposed to be going on to spoil it.

Visually it mostly delivers. Well, apart from some 80's throwback rubber-mask monsters. I'll say now that before watching this I had never seen the band Lordi, nor knew anything about them bar that they won Eurovision. Apparently the monsters in this are members of the band, pretty much in their stage personas. Whatever. Anyway, I didn't know this while watching. I just thought the monsters/demons were mostly passable. Just about.

I'm almost sure there is a semi-coherent explanation behind what we see on-screen, but it may actually be better not to know it. It probably would actually have been incredibly lame come to think on it. The action keeps it rolling along pretty much well enough to keep the viewer mostly entertained, even if half the entertainment factor is joking about wtf is supposed to be happening in this movie exactly.

I gave it a four mainly because I got a good laugh out of it, especially out of how it explains pretty much nothing. Must have been the mood I was in, but I found that hella funny for some reason. Then I look up the movie on the internet and find out that NOBODY knows what the hell it's supposed to be about. That amused me further, and raised my score an extra half point to a 4/10.

It's not scary, or particularly coherent, but it's pretty nice visually and sonically. Overall, far from essential, but watchable. Don't expect too much and don't expect it to make any sense and it might entertain you if you are in the right mood.",Negative "I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.",Negative "Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played (note to the NFL).",Positive Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.,Negative "It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.

Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.

Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.

Bing Crosby's ""White Christmas"" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts).",Positive "Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran ""The Adventures of Superman"" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air ""Superman and the Mole Men."" I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.

It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.

No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.

That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.",Negative "Small SPOILERS alert !!!

Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the ""based on a true story"" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.

In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10",Positive "I saw this Documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, in a small 200-seat Cinema at the top of the main building at the Cannes Film Festival.

I absolutely was into it. I love the mix of awesomely made fictional scenes. It is amazing set-design. The scenes look really like they were filmed in 1920ies or 1930ies.

And the music is so nice.

I rate this experience 9/10.

* spoilers ahead *

The Documentary tells about awesome Blues-men, with black-and-white old-looking scenes of the black man playing the guitar and singing. It is really amazing. But this also mixes in new bands and that is maybe one thing I might dislike in this Documentary. It is the too abundant use of links to modern rock-bands playing those Blues songs in a modern way. I didn't really appreciate their trashed way of playing such awesome Blues songs. This is the same kind of un-perfect musical taste I found when watching Wim Wenders Buena Vista Social Club.

The Documentary was such a standing-ovation at this first screening in the little cinema, that the next day this Documentary was shown for everyone and normal tourists on the beach of the Croisette at the open-air cinema. Though the sand, the quality of the projection and the bad quality of the sound probably made it a difficult experience to enjoy for the thousands of people who were sitting in the sand that night.",Positive "I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.

The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.

The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.

Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema.",Negative "When I saw this film in the 1950s, I wanted to be a scientist too. There was something magical and useful in Science. I took a girl - friend along to see it a second time. I don't think she was as impressed as I was! This film was comical yet serious, at a time when synthetic fibres were rather new. Lessons from this film could be applied to issues relating to GM experimentation of today.",Positive "So much has been written about the film's plot, the wonderful acting performance, the script, the melancholy, bittersweet atmosphere, the superb direction - what can I add? Just watch for one of the most heart warming, beautifully acted, poignant scenes ever filmed. It is Christmas eve and Frank Morgan's character (the owner of the shop - Mr. Matuschek)is recovering from his broken marriage and a suicide attempt. As each of his employees leave he invites them to a Christmas dinner. Each and everyone of them politely turn him down. They all have plans for their own Christmas eve. At this stage there is a deep sadness to this moving scene. Frank Morgan gives the performance of his career and this scene easily brings me to tears. Thankfully we have a happy denouement to this very special scene. The new employee, the errand boy, is the last to exit the shop into a beautiful snowy street scene. Desperately Mr. Matuschek approaches this boy and asks him how he would love to spend the evening with him, he will treat him to all the wonderful Christmas food that this errand boy has probably never seen!The chap is overwhelmed, he too is obviously as lonely as Mr. Matuschek and together they can have a wonderful Christmas meal. Every time I see this scene it moves me. If you manage to get the delightful DVD look at the great trailer with Frank Morgan introducing himself as Mr. Matuschek and an appearance by the director of the film- the talented Ernst Lubitsch. This film is a joy from beginning to end.",Positive "A fantastic show and an unrealized classic; The League of Gentlemen remains as one of the greatest modern comedies of recent times.

With a dark and bizarre style of humor that towers over the tired, formulaic approach of it's inferior, yet unfortunately far more acknowledged successor, Little Britain, The League of Gentlemen was truly something special during a rather quiet era in British comedy.

Up until it's arrival on the scene, there had never really been anything like The League of Gentlemen before. On the surface, a seemingly simplistic sketch show, the show soon unfolds as a vivid, sinister but incredibly hilarious universe populated with all manner of brilliant comedic creations. What really sets the show apart from it's rivals, is it's approach to telling us it's story. Rather than serve us re-hashed sketches, barely distinguishable from the next, here we see each individual or group of characters go through their various journeys and story lines. No visit to them is the same, and each time they offer us up with a surprise.

Gradually, over three series' and a Christmas special, the fictional town of Royston Vasey is heaving with a grotesque yet hilarious populace. And that's probably the main reason why the show is such a joy to watch (and also the reason why the show would easily merit more series') Unlike other current shows like The Catherine Tate Show or more importantly Little Britain, the League both know when a character has run it's course, and have the opportunity to deal with that. Several fan favorite's, who could have easily been kept on to entertain further, bowed out before the series came to a close, giving room for fellow characters to grow more, or allow for the introduction of newer residents of Royston Vasey to make their mark.

Another thing that sets this show above others is that the writing team approach the script process with care and intelligence. As mentioned before, all four members of the League have a sound mind when it comes to judging the longevity of their creations, and when it's time to call it quits in respect to certain characters. This awareness has also meant The League of Gentlemen undergoes a bold evolution, not usually seen in a show of this nature. The narrative driven, and far darker third series is a brave step away from the more sketch based first two series' and this bold move by the League really pays off. With the third series, there's less of an urgency for them to please an audience, and like the Christmas special, they pursue individual stories with a clear narrative, unlike the more sketch-based previous series' that (succesfully) binded together various sets of sketches into a series' long story arc.

The third series is both a refreshing change of pace of style, as well as a real treat for fans who've already seen the first two. Despite some polarized opinion on the third series, any real fan of the League will appreciate what the third series has to offer, as well as really enjoy the more character based episodes, that only delve deeper into fan favorite's, but pair up and inter-wine characters that might not have crossed paths previously.

It might take a little trying to get into the change in style, but it's definitely worth it, and in my opinion, the third series is the best and also provides a firm conclusion to the series.

The show's not without it's drawbacks, and very occasionally certain characters and set pieces appear somewhat out of place, but for the most part, the genius writing, dark nature of the show and the host of brilliant characters (that are often all too close to real life) make for a real treat and prove what comedy should be about and puts much of the more recent, catch phrase driven and often desperate attempts at comedy to shame",Positive "One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.

If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?

I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called ""The Gunfighter"" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.",Negative "I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised.",Negative "I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting ""known"" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.",Negative "this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't",Positive """Shower"" is an story about loyalty, about the unstoppable advance of modern world in the detriment of rather traditional and more human ways of life. A man forced to choose between his successful career in business, his big-city life, his wife, and his retarded young brother. The eternal doubt between what we WANT to do and what we SHOULD do. The modern China versus the ancient one. The public baths with its gatherings, its cricket fights versus the shopping centres and the skyscraper. Lots of old men and women that are no longer needed. China, one country, two systems, as Xiao Ping said ... though one of them is killing the other.

Tender, moving, full of funny moments, and of bitter-sweet ones.The sensitive ones will cry and laugh equally. The actors are enormous, especially the one who performs the role of the retarded boy; and Yang Zhang makes a good job, easy, simple, letting the story just flow by itself.

My rate: 8/10",Positive "What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.",Negative "If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed ""100% West Coast Boriqua."" This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.",Negative "I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.",Positive "Excellent political thriller, played much quieter and slower than other, higher ranking films in this genre. When people talk about Pacino and Cusack how do they manage to skip over these amazing career topping performances? A story of friendships, father-son relationships, corruption and deceit. The two actors gel amazingly well together, and the supports from Aiello and Fonda are equally as impressive, although Aiello is brilliant, especially when the papers run to press. Instead of focussing on an over complex corruption scandal, it creates wonderful characters who show the human side of failure an political bribery, The final scenes with each of the main characters are wonderfully written and acted.",Positive "I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this.

The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.

I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it!

Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:

The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...

I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.

So a big, big thumbs down from me.",Negative "THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic… nothing really makes any sense.

Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it… nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close –knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.

Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.

Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says ""But I love you"" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do – but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him – and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people – it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here… I guess ""Every man for himself"" is still the French way of doing things… Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the ""touchy-feely"" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking ""What's the matter, can't you sleep?"", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.

The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine… especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough… HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it – he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.",Negative "In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations.",Positive "This is by far the worst film I have seen in my entire life. The acting is poor and the storyline is almost incomprehensible. Whether or not you like lightships or any ships for that matter is irrelevant. As for special effects the film has none. The whole film crew were probably on the boat out in rough seas rather than in a studio and when some of the men are ""stabbed"" (if you can even call it that) their reactions are totally unreal. The guns are more quiet than a mute. How this film could have one two awards puts serious questions to the state of the human mind. Well thats about it. This review is probably more fun to read than the film is to watch. If anyone is considering watching it or buying it I would seriously advise you against it for obvious reasons. I have said that it includes a spoiler. If the fact that some people get stabbed and a gun gets fired is a plot giveaway. I suppose it is because they are the only good parts of the film.",Negative "when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.",Negative "I like this film for several reasons. I have a soft spot for films about intricately plotted criminal plots like TOPKAPI. I also enjoy films (like TOPKAPI and BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET) that spoof the the genre. One of the best ones is DISORGANIZED CRIME.

Corbin Bernsen has met four cons over the years, and he decides they can all be useful in a bank robbery he is planning in a small Montana town. But he hasn't given any details on the crime to the fellows, nor do they really know each other at all. Shortly after he sends for them Bernsen is arrested by two New Jersey policemen (Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck) whom he escaped from before and have a warrant to bring him back. While he is in their custody the four cons (Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Philips, Ruben Blades, and Will Russ) show up without a clue about why they are there except that Bernsen was planning something.

The first twenty minutes of the film deal with the four cons slowly getting used to each other, with Gwynne and Philips managing to push away their own suspicions to figure out they have to trust each other. At the same time we see Bernsen patiently waiting for the right moment to escape from O'Neill and Roebuck again - not too difficult as they are not the brightest bulbs who ever existed. The result are two sets of plots that will keep juxtaposing against each other throughout the film: the four cons trying to figure out what Bernsen's scheme was, and how to put it into operation, and Bernsen trying to maintain his own freedom from his pursuers and regain his cabin (and hopefully find his gang there for him to take command of). There is also a third, smaller, plot involving the growing annoyance and anger of local Sheriff Hoyt Axton against the idiots from New Jersey who keep getting into his hair.

There are many delightful moments in the film, such as Axton, egged on by O'Neil and Roebuck, into surrounding a house in the town that Bernsen is supposed to be hiding inside of, and yelling (through a megaphone, ""Come out, we have you surrounded!!"", only to have the scene switch to a huge, Montana plain that Bernsen is struggling and stumbling through miles from where the police think he is at that moment. There are moments of misadventures by our four cons, who fortunately put the oldest (Gwynne) into leadership position. This does not always guarantee anything. At one point their car won't start, and they have to thumb a ride by truck. Unfortunately it is a truck carrying manure.

The conclusion with the gang successfully carrying out the robbery, including disabling all the police cars at the critical time (Philips specialty is cars) is also a gem of timing, suspense, and comic results. The film is very entertaining, and certainly worth watching.",Positive "I really didn't expect much from this movie, but it wasn't bad; actually it was quite good. This movie contained a couple of the funniest bits of writing I have ever seen from a motion picture. Now am not saying this is one of the funniest movies of all time, but I laughed pretty hard at some parts. ""The police ruled my father's death a suicide. They said he fell down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets"". Now this movie is not for everybody, its mostly stupid humor like Zoolander or Dodgeball; so if you hated these movies I would probably recommend you to steer clear. Overall it was an enjoyable movie, about a group of superhero wannabes, who end up becoming real heroes in the end. It's a vastly overrated comedy that many people probably haven't seen yet, because like me before viewing it expected it to be utter garbage. After viewing this film, I finally understand why this movie was able to assemble such a superstar cast which includes Ben Stiller, William H. Macy, Hank Azaria, and even that kid from Good Burger. It's because Mystery Man is full of excellent comedic writing period 7 out of 10. A very big surprise.",Positive "Does anyone know the exact quote about ""time and love"" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul!

I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship.

Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years.

He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.

This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.

I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.

Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE.

Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks!",Positive "as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.

however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.

i'd like to disagree.

as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes — the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.

for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.",Positive "Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the ""idealistic youths"" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.

This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.",Negative "Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.",Negative "TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.

Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent.

I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.",Negative "*SPOILERS*

This is only the second pay-per-view I've given a perfect 10, the first being the 1991 Royal Rumble. It was full of exciting matches that weren't memorable, just disposable fun. And that's why I love it.

The opening match between Razor and DiBiase, as well as Ludvig Borga vs. Marty Jannetty were the only low points. They were OK matches, but DiBiase deserved better in his final pay per view match. These days, a match like this would have run-ins and a bigger climax for Razor's first major babyface push. And Jannetty, fresh off a Intercontinental title run, could have had a better match with Borga. But I don't think anyone really cared. They just needed a Borga push on pay per view television.

IRS and The Kid were great, as were Michaels and Perfect. I wish Perfect could have won, but Michaels lies down for no one. Notice how right after this, he left the WWF so he wouldn't have to job to Razor. Bret Hart had two great brawls with Doink (notice how everyone's best match is against the Hit-man) and then Lawler. Their rivalry was a classic; that's why that year's Feud of the Year was a no-brainer. How often do you see two legends win Feud of the Year this late in their careers?

The Steiners-Heavenly Bodies match was one of the best of the year. Who knew the Bodies could hold their own against one of the best teams ever?

Many say that the Undertaker-Giant Gonzalez match was a waste of time. But I loved it. Remember, what made the old WWF (as in, pre-WWE) great was the mix of athleticism and freak show. Is there a soul out there who didn't like Akeem?

The main event wasn't bad, although nowhere near match of the year status. They put Lex Luger over well, but made a wise choice in having Yokozuna keep the belt. He was the first heel since Superstar Graham to hold the belt for more than two months. Nowadays, heels are champions all the time. But from the beginning of the WWWF through the WWF of the 90s, if you blinked, you missed a heel title reign.

As an old school wrestling fan, this one and SummerSlam '88 are my favorites.",Positive "The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should.

Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F",Negative "This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.",Negative "OK, I am not a professional movie critic but come on...a true story!!!!

They are tunneling under another store to get underneath the bank and stumble across a tomb. At tomb with a passageway which goes directly under the bank.

OK, I'll play along.

But then they get into the bank and decide to go to sleep. Yeah!!! I am sure with all the adrenaline pumping through them they are going to just fall asleep.

This blows the whole picture!!!! How lame!!!!!

Glad I didn't have to pay to watch this one.",Negative "Superficically, ""Brigadoon"" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind ""An American in Paris"", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior ""It's Always Fair Weather"" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as ""My Fair Lady"" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece ""Gigi""; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent ""American in Paris.""

What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.

While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like ""Cabin in the Sky"" and ""Meet Me in St. Louis"", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of ""Yolanda and the Thief"" or ""The Pirate"" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally ""good"" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.

At one point we're assured that ""everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon."" Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in ""Yolanda and the Thief."" Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in ""AIP""), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.",Negative "This is one movie that will take time to get out of your head once you have seen it. The dialogs are close to perfect, which was to be expected as it has been adapted from a play. The actors are simply giving their best, the story is simple and attractive. 88 minutes of pure bliss!

Yvan Attal is totally credible in his role, Sandrine Kiberlain is still the beautiful blonde (but not so dumb) providing as much pleasure to the eyes as to the ears, Jean-Paul Rouve is providing an excellent approximation of the total jerk (and proud to be such), and Marina Fois is the dumb friend who is always blundering when you expect it least.

Thumbs up to Bernard Rapp and associates for adapting this excellent play, and all the best for future productions!

I wish there were more of these in nowadays production. If you liked it, you will also probably enjoy: ""Un air de famille"", and ""Cuisine et dependances"". Both were written and played by the couple Bacri/Jaoui.",Positive "I'm a fan of C&C, going back to their records, and liked this movie, but at one point in the mid-1980's on cable television in San Jose California, it was aired with an alternate plot line that destroyed the entire point of the movie. All references to marijuana were replaced with ""diamonds"". The bag that ""Red"" drops to Chong has diamonds in it instead of marijuana, but the conversation still remains the same (""...it's worth ~$3000/lb""). There is also a subplot in which clips of aliens on a ship were added observing C&C, and talking to each other about getting the diamonds. At the end, instead of ""space coke"", it's something else. I'm not sure who created this version, but it was horrible, and obvious that they were attempting to make it family/child friendly. It would have been better if that network had not aired it at all.",Positive "It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this.",Negative "No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These ""movies"" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!",Negative "The wonderfully urbane Ronald Coleman is show-cased here as in few other of his films. He is literally in every scene and this comical movie remains fresh because of him, not in spite of him. He is handsome, witty and very clever here as he remains a step ahead of his wandering, lovely wife--played perfectly by Anna Lee. The movie is based on a french play and brings all the best qualities of that farce. Most of the supporting cast is well known, at least by face if not name...and are absolutely perfect for this very funny film. The fantastic Mr. Coleman is a combination of Sean Connery and Clark Gable as he stays a step ahead of the other characters. His multi-talents can be further appreciated in the classic ""Lost Horizon"" which every film buff must see.",Positive "I must admit, this is one of my favorite horror films of all time. The unique way that John Carpenter has directed this picture, opening the door to so many mock-genres, it will chill you to the bone whether it is your first time watching it or your fiftieth. The sound, the menacing horror of Michael Meyers and the infamous scream of Jamie Lee Curtis gives this film instant cult status and a great start for the independent era. I love the music, I love the characters, the familiar yet spooky setting, the simplistic nature of the villain, and the random chaos of it all. There is no really rhyme or reason to the killing in this first film, giving us a taste of Michael's true nature. Is he insane, or in some way just a very brilliant beast? That question may never be truly answered, but Carpenter gives us his 100% and more devotion to this amazing masterpiece.

John Carpenter is the master of horror. While lately his films have not been the caliber that they once were (see Ghosts of Mars), Halloween began his powerhouse of a career. This is his ultimate film. While he did release other greats, I will always remember this one as the film that caused me to turn on all the lights, beware when babysitting, and check behind closed doors, because you never knew where the evil would appear next. Carpenter has this amazing ability to bring you into the world in which he weaves. With the power of his camera, he places these images of Meyers in places you least expected while giving you the perception as if the murderer is right next to you. I loved every scene in which we panned back and there was Michael, watching from the distance, without anyone the wiser. That was scary, yet utterly brilliant. I loved the scenes in which Carpenter pulled your fright from nearly thin air. There you would be, minding your own business, when suddenly that horrid mask would appear out of nowhere. Like the characters, you too thought it was just a trick of the eye, but that is where Carpenter gets you, it isn't. Michael isn't a ghost, he is a human being (or at least we think), yet he has a stronger mental ability than most of the main characters. This leads into some really dark themes and unexplored symbolism, but even without that, this is a spooky film.

Then, if you just didn't have enough of Michael just vaporizing in the windows of your house, Carpenter adds that chilling theme music. I still have that tapping of the piano keys in my mind, constantly wondering if Meyers is looking at me through the window. Carpenter has found the perfect combination of visual frights and chilling sounds to foreshadow what may happen to our unsuspecting victims next. It is lethal, and it is done with refreshing originality and more unique thrills than anything released by today's Horror Hollywood could muster. Carpenter's Halloween is a breath of fresh air in the midst of what could be a rough horror year, with actual scares being replaced by Paris Hilton, you know that the quality isn't quite the same.

Finally, I would like to say that even the simplistic nature of the opening murder in this film is terrifying and chilling. The use of the ""clown"" mask sent shivers up my spine. The way that it was filmed with that elongated one shot using the child's mask as if it were our own eyes is still one of the best horror openings ever! It completely sets the tone for the remainder of that film. You have the babysitter theme, you have the childish behavior which carries with Michael throughout the film, and you have the art talent of Carpenter all rolled into one. I could literally speak for hours upon hours about this film, but instead I would rather go watch it again. It is worth the repeat visit many times!

Overall, I think this is one of the most outstanding films in cinematic history. Skip all those foreign films that think that they are going to chance the face of movies leave it to a budget tight Carpenter and the slasher film genre. This singular movie redefined a whole generation of horror films, and still continues to be an influence on modern-day horror treats. The lethal combination of a genuinely spooky murderer, the powerful cinematography of the events (which normally doesn't amount to much in horror films), and the beauty of Jamie Lee Curtis is exactly what makes Halloween that film above the rest. Sure, Freddy is cool and you feel sympathetic for Jason, but Michael is real, he is troubled, and he is on the loose lusting for the blood of babysitters. What can be better?

Grade: ***** out of *****",Positive "***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on ""Match Point"" the two return for ""Scoop"" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as ""Match Point"" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees",Positive "I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version.

My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it.

I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.

I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it.

The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.

Hope this helps.",Positive "Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!",Negative "I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman.",Positive "To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a ""so bad it's funny"" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).

From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The ""plot"" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging ""look at me I'm being funny!"" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).

To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title ""Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor"" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: ""...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus."" Uranus - ""Your Anus"" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.

It says strange things about the ""comedies"" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say ""sh*t"" out loud.

I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.",Negative "When reading a review from another user, saying that it's a terrible game, I could not stand idle and do nothing!

Well, this game is great, from the news clips (with two real persons, full of humour sense and credibility!), to the story, I find it very good! I only complain about the enemies start blinking when they die, until they disappear; and some frustrating situations on the LEILA VR missions, when riding the bike, here and there...

Except that, it's a great game, with a great story, good graphics, excellent characters, great soundtrack... I recommend it! Surely! It can be a bit old, but still enjoyable! At least, on the Dreamcast... but the PS2 version shall be the same.",Positive "I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are ""taught"" in the same type of manner as this episode.",Positive "This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!

",Positive "in one of Neil Simon's best plays. Creaky, cranky ex-Vaudeville stars played by Walter Matthau and George Burns are teaming up for a TV comedy special. The problem is they haven't even SEEN each other in over a decade. Full of zippy one liners and inside showbiz jokes, this story flies along with a steady stream of humor. Good work also by Richard Benjamin as the harried nephew, Rosetta LeNoire as the nurse, and Howard Hesseman as the TV commercial director. Steve Allen and Phyllis Diller appear as themselves. Trivia note: The opening montage contains footage from Hollywood Revue of 1929 and shows Marie Dressler, Bessie Love, Polly Moran, Cliff Edwards, Charles King, Gus Edwards, and the singing Brox Sisters.",Positive "Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, ""The Bat People"" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.

Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....

But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in ""Smokey and the Bandit"" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!

The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?

And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?

How about...no stars for ""The Bat People"", full version OR MST3K version!

By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.",Negative "After seeing Arthur on TV numerous times I laughed so hard Dudley Moore's role as Arthur a happy go luck drunken millionaire was hysterical but John Gielgud as his servant/ father figure Hobson was equally charming. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and watched it, despite the passage of nearly 27 years it's still as enjoyable as it ever was Liza Minnelli's role as the love interest was fascinating the chemistry between the two was magic.

Arthur Bach, (Moore) is a spoiled drunken millionaire who has a bar bill that reads like the national debt he has no desire to grow up and enjoys acting like a child. His activities are supervised by his dry English butler Hobson (Gielgud) it appears that nobody really cares about Arthur except for him, Arthur's father (Barbour) offers an ultimatum if he doesn't marry the dreadful blonde socialite Susan Johnson (Eikenberry) in four weeks he'll cut off his son's inheritance of 750 million dollars.

However Arthur meets and falls in love with Linda Marolla (Minnelli)a young working class waitress and tie thief,now he faces a difficult decision marry for love or money. When Hobson dies Arthur finally grows up and breaks it off with Susan before the wedding, leaving him to keep both the money and his true love.

Arthur is a truly enchanting romantic comedy for for everyone",Positive "Quite simply the best reality show ever made. The first two seasons (the only ones that matter) are on Hulu. I challenge anyone to watch the first three episodes of season 1 and not like it. I guarantee you will finish watching the season. Then I guarantee that you will watch season 2.

Other quick reasons to watch it: 1. Anderson Cooper is hilarious 2. The locations in Europe are awesome 3. The games are mentally challenging 4. It's very interactive 5. In one episode a player responds to another player's desperate, ""I'm trying as hard as I can!"" with an equally desperate, ""Not necessarily.""

Can you figure out...Who Is The Mole?",Positive "Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated ""Movie of the Week"" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.

Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than ""us"" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of ""oddness"" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.

It's difficult to hear the phrase ""A dingo took my baby!"" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.

Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.

Haunting questions, with or without the film.",Negative """Witchery"" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of ""The Evil Dead"". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.",Negative """8 SIMPLE RULES... FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER,"" is my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that James Garner and David Spade were good, I liked the show more when John Ritter was the leading man. If you ask me, his sudden passing was very tragic. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope some network brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see.",Positive "you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, ""I am over twice your age."" Okay, try triple grandpa! The ""old enough to be your father"" theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.",Negative "A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.

I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless ""10 Items or Less"" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""Um Astro em Minha Vida"" (""A Star in My Life"")",Negative What a disappointment! I hated the mummy but this one was even worse! It was very tiring and unbelievable and at a certain point I found myself sighing and yawning all the time. I can't believe that people actually liked this movie. The role of Nicholas Cage wasn't very convincing. The whole movie felt like a grand tour around America's most wanted buildings. The never stopping flow of hints and combinations wasn't very convincing either. I stopped paying attention around 30 minutes. What was supposed to be a happy night out became a total disappointment. What a drag... I guess I've just seen too many movies to enjoy National Treasure.,Negative "I just saw this movie on Flix after timer-taping it. I grew up watching F Troop and had a major hard for Wrangler Jane so I was shocked, literally shocked, to find out after seeing this film that the degenerate homicidal nurse was Melody Patterson, who looks pretty good but also looks completely different and is unfortunately poorly photographed. I would never have guessed it was her in a million years. What the hell is she doing in a picture like this? I agree with the guys here that the movie lacks what it's pushing. No sex, no gore, no tease. It's also a remake of the Atomic Brain aka Monstrosity (1964 or thereabouts). Most of the action is tedious; the main character spends enormous amounts of time running around the crazed doctor's house and basement, and the neighborhood in general, or being roughed up by the cop, all of it boring and time-filling. Now if the Italians would have made this, half the film would have been the Slingblade/Uncle Ernest/Jack Elam henchman fondling the unconscious nude girls. But you only get that for 20 seconds.",Negative "*Sigh* Leave it to us Finns to take a stupid idea, blow it out of proportion and try to market it as cool. Lordi is a mediocre band at best, and a single gimmick will get you only so far.

To all you marketing idiots out there: this is the reason for the inherent minority complex that is often encountered when Finland tries to export something.

Lordi isn't scary. Lordi is lame. Lordi is OVER.

I want to apologize to the rest of the world for this plastic-faced idiocy. Sure, they won the Eurovision.

No, wait - they won the Eurovision. That's it. I rest my case.",Negative "All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.

I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.

Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.

The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.

I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.

Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.

Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.

I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?",Negative "There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.

It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.",Negative "This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.

There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.

There is not a false moment in this film.

The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.

It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work.",Positive "Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?",Negative "It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.",Negative "Elizabeth Rohm was the weakest actress of all the Law and Order ADA's and her acting is even worse here. Her attempts at a Texas accent are amateurish and unrealistic. Nor can she adequately summon the intense emotions needed to play the mother of a kidnapped child; at times while her daughter is missing she manages to sound only vaguely annoyed, as if she can't remember where she left her keys.

This is an important true story, so it's too bad that the awful acting of the lead actress distracts so much from the message. The rest of the cast is talented enough, but they just can't overcome Rohm's tendency to simply lay on a particularly thick imitation of a Southern drawl whenever actual acting is required.",Negative "In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.

This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.

Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.",Negative "At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)",Negative "I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.",Negative "Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.",Negative "If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think ""Scarface"" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw ""Goodfellas"", ""Menace II Society"" or ""Dead Presidents"" and thought MMM ""That's the life for me!"" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied.",Negative ". . . is just as good as the original. Very nearly achieves greatness because of Cundieff's remarkable ear for music and dialogue. Skewers the self-important swagger of the hip-hop poseurs. The group ""Niggaz with Hats"" (NWH) are every rap group you ever heard and utterly self-parodic. Wardrobe is unbelievable. Buy the OOP soundtrack if you can.",Positive "Some guys think that sniper is not good because of the action part of it was not good enough. Well, if you regard it as an action movie, this view point could be quite true as the action part of this movive is not actually exciting. However, I think this is a psychological drama rather than an action one.

The movie mainly told us about the inside of two snipers who definitely had different personalities and different experiences. Tomas Beccket , who was a veteran and had 74 confirmed kills, looked as if he was cold-hearted. However, after Beccket showed his day dream of Montana, we can clearly see his softness inside. It was the cruel war and his partners' sacrifice that made Beccket become so called cold-hearted.

Millar, on the contrary, was a new comer, a green hand, and was even not qualified as a sniper. Billy Zane did quite well to show millar's hesitation and fear when he first tried to ""put a bullet through one's heart""(as what Beccket said). What he thought about the actuall suicide mission was that it could be easily accomplished and then he could safely get back and receive the award.

These two guys were quite different in their personalities and I think that the movie had successfully showed the difference and the impact they had to each other due to the difference in their personalities. These two snipers quarreled, suspected each other and finally come to an understanding by the communication and by what they had done to help even to save the other.

Sniper isn't a good action movie but a good psychological one.",Positive "Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.

This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it.",Positive "A wonderful film by Powell and Pressburger, whose work I now want to explore more. The film is about what we perceive as real and what is real, and how the two can be so difficult to distinguish from one another. Beautifully shot and acted, although David Niven doesn't seem to be 27 years old, as his character claims to be. Fun to see a very young Richard Attenborough. This film made me think, while I was watching it, and afterwards.",Positive "The arrival of vast waves of white settlers in the 1800s and their conflict with the Native American residents of the prairies spelled the end for the buffalo...

The commercial killers, however, weren't the only ones shooting bison... Train companies offered tourist the chance to shoot buffalo from the windows of their coaches... There were even buffalo killing contests... ""Buffalo"" Bill Cody killed thousands of buffalo... Some U. S. government officers even promoted the destruction of the bison herds... The buffalo nation was destroyed by greed and uncontrolled hunting... Few visionaries are working today to rebuild the once-great bison herds...

""The Last Hunt"" holds one of Robert Taylor's most interesting and complex performances and for once succeeded in disregarding the theory that no audience would accept Taylor as a heavy guy...

His characterization of a sadistic buffalo hunter, who kills only for pleasure, had its potential: The will to do harm to another...

When he is joined by his fellow buffalo stalker (Stewart Granger) it is evident that these two contrasted characters, with opposite ideas, will clash violently very soon...

Taylor's shooting spree was not limited to wild beasts... He also enjoy killing Indians who steal his horses... He even tries to romance a beautiful squaw (Debra Paget) who shows less than generous to his needs and comfort...

Among others buffalo hunters are Lloyd Nolan, outstanding as a drunken buffalo skinner; Russ Tamblyn as a half-breed; and Constance Ford as the dance-hall girl... But Taylor steals the show... Richard Brooks captures (in CinemaScope and Technicolor) distant view of Buffalos grazing upon the prairie as the slaughter of these noble animals...

The film is a terse, brutish outdoor Western with something to say about old Western myths and a famous climax in which the bad guy freezes to death while waiting all night to gun down the hero...",Positive "I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.

I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.

This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.

I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.

Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.",Negative "I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of ""The Air Up There"". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre.",Negative "I love this show. Now, I'm not a big fan of many science fiction shows, so if it bares any resemblance to them, I didn't notice. I like the storybook quality of the cinematography. I even like the love story, even though as I am enjoying it I wonder in the back of my mind how the heck that part of the story can truly develop seeing as Ned cannot touch Chuck or else... well, you know. I even like Chuck, I don't find her annoying at all, and I generally hate overly sweet, nice, perfect characters. I even like the narrator's voice, even if it bothers one of my family members and bares some resemblance to some Walgreens commercials. I could nitpick about all the other things about Ned's predicament and how the writers are going to address it in the future but I just rather watch and wait and see what tale the writers weave.",Positive "An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?

Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).

The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.

His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.

After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.

None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.

Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).",Negative "This is one of those movies that you wish you hadn't seen before - so you could see it again "" for the first time "" . Van Dine's books still bring pleasure - but are termed excessively flowery by many . This movie is by far the best film adaptation of his works . William Powell is William Powell - say no more . The plot is intricate . The story moves all too quickly , because you want it to last . Enjoy.",Positive "This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that!",Positive "Keep in mind I'm a fan of the genre but have only recently seen this film for the first time. How I've overlooked it all this time is a wonder to me. To me this is a better film then the much lauded ""High Noon"". It's a great western with excellent acting and a great story. The DVD is in beautifull black and white with outstanding cinematography. If you like westerns or James Stewart this film is not to be missed.",Positive "After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.

13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat clichéd story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.

The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening ""thriller scene"" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy ""fix it in the mix"" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong ""made for television"" feel, and a low budget one at that.

After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.

For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.

Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.

The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with ""normal"" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.

Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free.",Positive "It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.

Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!!",Positive "Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying.",Negative "I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.",Negative "Actually, I never bought into the metal was satanic and stuff, but this movie kind of played on that idea. Though certainly not a movie to take seriously or to rate really high, it does serve its purpose in that it entertains while it is playing. The story has a metal band burned to death in their hotel, one of their fans has a dream to this effect and said band starts to go on a kill spree from beyond the grave. So yes, a bit of ""Nightmare on Elm Street"" plot going on here. Granted Freddy never molested a girl in a car before. There was another movie featuring a heavy metal band in it, but it was very different in how it played out as it had a band that kind of took over a town of kids and made them crazy. This one simply has the one fan of the band kind of helping the killer spirit at first then trying to stop him. Nothing to gruesome in it as I do not remember all that many gory kills. Quite frankly, the scene I do remember most is the scene of the girl wearing the headphones and then being molested by some creature incarnation of the band. Nothing great, but a nice time filler.",Positive "So one person says, ""This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II."" And the other says, ""Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?"" And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. ""I can't explain. Just see it.""",Positive "I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.

First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.

The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.

Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.

I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.

This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.",Negative "The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.

Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.

The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.",Negative "This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.",Positive "I got the DVD from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation.",Negative "Contrary to most other comments about ""Syriana"" on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.

In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so ""story-lines"" at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.

Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.

This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.",Negative "WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS, in my opinion, is a very touching and kind of heartbreaking drama about the consequences of being anorexic or bulimic. Anytime Lexi (Katie Wright) or Jennifer (Marley Shelton) threw up, I wanted to vomit myself. It's kind of hard to explain why. If you ask me, they should have been more cooperative about things. However, I did enjoy seeing them do things together as well as get lectured by their parents. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, ""If you ask me, WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS does indeed show you how being anorexic or bulimic can affect a person's body. "" Now, in conclusion, I recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. You're in for some tears and a good time, so the next time it's on TV, kick back with a friend and watch it.",Positive "For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.",Negative "I know I should like this film, and I do for the most part, but as other's have mentioned, it is a bit long in the tooth. I to also found the raging hormones of the all male crew to be a bit annoying. It's a wonder they didn't start panting and howling at the moons as well. I also have to say that overall, the movie leaves me cold. It's a very sterile atmosphere that permeates the film. On the plus side the effects are great (besides the cartoon monster), as are the effects, props, costumes and of course Robbie. If the robot was not in this film, I don't think it would have been as popular as it was/is. The second half of the movie picks up steam once we start to investigate the forgotten gadgets of the ""Krell."" As many times as I've seen this movie, the Krell still leaves me scratching my head as to exactly who or what they were. Based on what was being produced at that time, besides ""This Island Earth,"" Forbidden Planet is miles above the average Sci-Fi movies of the time. Being filmed in color also adds to its enjoyment. Certainly a classic in its own right, flaws and all, and deservedly so.",Positive "Sometimes I watch a movie and am really impressed by it – and still it is not easy to explain why I liked it that much. This is mostly true for the uncommon movies – the ones one can hardly compare with the rest out there. Goodnight Mister Tom is one of these special movies. There is a lot of emotion in that movie – and the acting was so good that while watching the movie, I was crying and laughing as the story went on. The young Nick Robinson – is a young boy (William) evacuated from London because of the air strikes there during the Second World War. Mr. Tom played by John Thaw is an old man leaving in the village the evacuated children were send to.

At first Tom refuses to take any responsibilities - such as taking care for a troubled young lad – but accepts since he is left without a choice. During the stay Mr. Tom discovers how horrible the life has been for the William – alongside his luggage his mom sent a belt and written instructions to the host of her son – not to hesitate to use it. This belt is berried in the field – never to be used in such a brutal manner. Mr. Tom provides a real home for William, and the boy is happy with his new life, he goes to school, makes new friends and discovers hidden talents. All of the sudden a letter William is called home in London with a letter mentioning that she is not feeling well…and it starts all over again – only this time it gets much worse… There are many feelings you can sense in this movie – love, fear, sadness, happiness, pain, hope – and much more. Goodnight Mr. Tom is another masterpiece of the British cinema comparable only with others such as Dear Frankie and Billy Elliot – if one is to compare. I have truly enjoyed watching it and highly recommend it. Before finishing this review I would also like to mention the great performance of Thomas Orange in the role of Zac – reminded me of a friend of mine from my own childhood ( :",Positive "First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend

-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three

overall D-Wars is a pile",Negative "It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).",Negative "THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.

And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does

give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.

Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.",Negative "Finally we get a TV series where we get to see the acting talent! Episode one was excellent! The script gave us a little more than usual, yeah, there was still the ""i'm not your father -i'm your father and omigod you cheated on me!"" rubbish but the script allowed the actors to actually feel and live those real moments rather than show us what it would feel like if -like so many TV soaps do.

The camera work also gave us a little more than usual, there were no boring shots of repeated angles for hours yet there was no unnecessary 'shots inside shots or hand-held camera crap' to add an ""artistic"" edge it gave us what we needed to see and also some beautiful scenery pictures as well!

Nothing was over-dramatised or melodramatic they were real people in a real place dealing with real situations, the show lacked nothing in drama and was completely relevant. It was SUCH a relief to be exposed to real acting and so nice to let our country see just how talented our actors can be when given a real script, a real opportunity! Thank you Tony Tilse, Sam Miller, channel ten and all cast and crew -wonderful work!! please continue what you are doing, your efforts are much appreciated and do not go unnoticed!",Positive """Trigger Man"" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.

The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.

They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of ""The Lord of the Rings"" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching ""Trigger Man"" along the way. Awful.

A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star.",Negative "Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream ""unprofessionals""--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.

After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.

Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.

By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how ""realistic"" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a ""fan film"" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.",Negative "This is one of those rare movies, it's lovely and compelling, dignified and quirky, a true gift. I consider it a prerequisite for any trip to Italy, or any vacation at all, because it reminds you to open yourself up to a broader experience (yup, find the magic). I especially loved Josie Lawrence, as Lottie Wilkins, but every lead and supporting actor is flawless in this film. Further the costumes, if you're drawn to fashion and costumes, are extraordinarily well done. I just wish they'd release it on DVD because I'm wearing my tape version out!

Absolutely well worth your time, just make sure to settle in to watch it, without any interruptions.",Positive "I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief.",Positive "I cannot believe that I wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. The previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and I was really looking forward to this. But most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. Suranne Jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines, but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. Notable exceptions were Bernard Hill and Anne Reid, old stagers whose diction was exemplary. Do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible? As a result I suppose I lost track of what was going on, and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them-and-us thing between Muslims and the rest I soon lost interest. The ending was a complete anti-climax. A complete dud.",Negative "Yes I know ""talkies"" had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed ""hammy"" stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see ""Titanic"" (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)""Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious ""SOS Titanic"" (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in ""A Night to Remember""(still the best feature film - please read my ""Tribute to Walter"" comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled ""End of a Dream"" so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The ""old Rose"" in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.",Negative "I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of ""Rivers and Tides."" However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.

The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed ""ethical"" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this ""artist,"" scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.

In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it.",Negative "about a year and a half ago my dad told me about The French Doors. i thought it sounded interesting enough but i didn't try to find it anywhere. Then about a year ago i remembered that film and thought ""hey why not"" and tried finding it on the internet. eventually after about a week of looking i found it on atom films. i called my dad over to the computer and said to him"" hey dad I've found that creepy film you told me about ages ago!"" He smiled at me, turned round turned off the lights so it was pitch black apart from the computer screen and told me to watch it. I started off fine...Then when he started getting worried about whatever was there i found it very unnerving. at the end i pushed back my chair and stood up...it made me jump!:P if you haven't seen this film i highly recommend you do because it is well worth it. even after the fourth or fifth time its still unsettling.

GREAT FILM!",Positive "Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.

Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer.

Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.

Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom ""Wings"", did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.

The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little.",Positive "This early sci-fi masterwork by Herbert George Wells with music by Arthur Bliss is a powerful piece of film-making. Adapted from Wells' somewhat different work by the author, it presents a look at the human future with the subject of periods of war as versus periods of 'peace'. The structure is that after a contrasted-pair of episodes of normalcy and gathering clouds of war, the script allows the war to happen. Two families, the Cabells and the Passworthys disagree about what may happen; Passworthy takes a hopeful view of civilization's ""automatic"" progress; Cabell is the thinker, the doubter. Their city Everytown--obviously London-- becomes wrecked by a war featuring tanks, a magnificent war march by Bliss, and the end of civilization. The second portion finds people living in the wreckage of what had been the city under a ""Boss"", played with bravura by Ralph Richardson, whose woman, lovely Margaretta Scott, is as fascinating a dreamer as he is a concrete-bound dictator type. He is trying to rebuild old WWI airplanes so he can attack a nearby hill tribe to complete his petty kingdom; a young scientist complains about having his work continually interrupted demands for planes--etc.--everlastingly; this is Wells' comment on war versus progress. The survivors are subject to a plague called ""The Wandering Sickness"" also. Enter a modern flying machine piloted by the Cabell of the first section of the film, now part of Wings Over the World, an International Scientists' Coalition, who are planning to end warfare forever. This flight-suited modernist has fascinating conversations with the Boss and his woman, their attraction being evident; then Boss sends up his aircraft against them, the Scientists come with huge numbers of planes and drop the ""Gas of Peace"" onto the ruins of Everytown. Only the Boss dies, fighting too hard against the pacifying. The film then shows ore being mined and by slow steps being made into the girders of a magnificent new futuristic city of towers. In section three, a future Cabell argues with a future Passworthy over the morality of human science. Passworthy wonders if they have a right to send men to the Moon; Cabell champions man's right to advancement and the need to expand his horizons. The son of Passworthy and Cabell's daughter, are the astronauts being sent. Theotocopulos, a religious-minded Luddite, makes a fiery speech on a huge screen in the city's Forum and leads an attack on the 'space gun' that is to fire the new rocket free of Earth's gravity. The climax of the plot is the firing of the space gun successfully; the denouement and ending is a speech by Cabell praising worth and science that is universally considered to be the most profound defense of the mind ever penned. ""It is all the universe--or nothing!"" Cabell tells Passworthy. ""Which shall it be?"" As Cabell, Raymond Massey gives perhaps his greatest screen performance; he is thoughtful, compassionate, and reasonable, a true scientist. As the rabble-rouser who wants to end the Age of Science, Cedric Hardwicke is perfect and powerful. Edward Chapman playing Passworthy does admirably impersonating the voice of convention and fear. The storyline is logical, frequently beautiful and always interesting. Given the near-extinction of mankind, the idea of a civilization run by rebuilder scientists is rendered plausible and credible to the viewer. This is a triumph for the director, William Cameron Menzies, for Bliss and for all concerned. Listen to the dialogue with someone you love; within its constructed limits, this is a thinking man's drama debating two possible human futures--progress or its reactionary opposite.",Positive "I was very interested to see this movie when it first came out in the theaters, however, I wasn't able to get around to it. So, finally, it hit the shelves, and I picked it up. Not knowing exactly what to expect, I plopped the dvd in the player, settled in the for an evening of murder, and pressed play. What followed was one of the more engaging flicks I've seen in the last couple years.

*SOME SPOILERS*

This is the story of the Wonderland murders, which led to the seediest parts of LA and straight to the biggest porn start of the 70's, John Holmes (Val Kilmer).

I was hooked from the beginning, and the feel of the movie held me all the way until the very bloody end. I was surprised to find that the movie focused less on the actual murders and more on the events before and the investigation after. Aside from a few blood splattered walls in the beginning, and the actual showing of the murders towards the end, the movie was more or less an engaging show of great dialoge and great acting. Val Kilmer all but sells me as a junkie porn star, and even the ""beautiful but that's it"" Bosworth was a joy to watch (and just for her looks, mind you)

I personally felt the best aspect of the movie was, as I mentioned, its lack of outright showing the murders. It was shown in a very dark atmosphere, so you couldn't completely see the brutal bludgeoning bestowed apon the sleeping foursome. Furthermore, the sound effects of said murders were more than enough to whet my appetite. They were being beating with lead pipes, there's not much more that needs to be said.

My only real problem was Carrie Fisher's brief appearence. Her portrayal of the overly-religious figure was, I think, a bit too cliche of her appearence. Maybe that person was actually part of the story, maybe not, but I wasn't sold, and for some reason, Fisher seemed a bit too ""akward"" in her portrayal.

Overall, an excellent movie worth the watch, even if once!

***8/10***",Positive "This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value.",Positive "This film, which is based on a true story, comes from first time director and long time actor, Denzel Washington. Denzel Washington has given us some of the best performances of the last decade, as a black soldier in the Civil War in Glory, and a lawyer in the acclaimed Philadelphia. And of course, he made special notoriety last year when he won the Academy Award for Best Actor in Training Day, in which Denzel Washington became the first African American to receive the award for Best Actor. I guess Denzel wanted a change of pace, so he chose to direct Antwone Fisher, in which he also stars. Fisher is played by Derek Luke, who is new to the silver screen, but has made some guest appearances on such television shows as King of Queens, and he will be appearing in the upcoming film release of Biker Boyz.

This is a truly well done film from Denzel Washington, considering it was his first time directing. Undoubtedly, Denzel felt some kind of commitment and believed in the real life story of Antwone Fisher. Antwone Fisher is about a young African American man in the Navy who constantly gets into fights, and after one particular brawl he is sent to see a Navy psychiatrist named Jerome Davenport, played by Denzel Washington. Davenport helps Antwone to deal with his troubled past and learn to move on with his life, by finding his birth mother who had to give him up at birth because she was in prison. What makes this film good is the fact that it's not overly melodramatic. I was expecting something a little more like Good Will Hunting, with a lot of swearing, fighting and vulgarity. Not that I didn't like Good Will Hunting, or the swearing, fighting and vulgarity of the film were out of place. Quite the contrary! However, Antwone Fisher is a true story, and I don't think that Washington wanted to sensationalize the story for dramatic affect in the film. Don't get me wrong, there are moments when we see Antwone fighting, carrying on and having moments when it seems like the world is closing in on him. After all, in his first session with his psychiatrist, the character played by Washington, Devenport asks Fisher where he was born, and Fisher's response is, `from under a rock,' an obvious jab at the pressures waning on Antwone Fisher's soul. But I had to appreciate the fact that this film wasn't sensationalized for dramatic affect. I think it shows real character on the part of Denzel Washington to deliver a more realistic story and to avoid the typical clichés that are common in Hollywood films, even those based on true stories. One other point that I would like to bring up about Antwone Fisher is the acting. Over all, performances were good in the film, but not great. At times, I think it was a bit obvious that the main characters were actors, but overall, to complain about performances in this film would be ludicrous. One actress that I would like to point out in this film is Viola Davis. She plays Antwone's mother, but she says barely two sentences in the movie at all, but not so much because she appears at the end of the film, but more because she in shock that her long lost son, Antwone has found her. What I would like to point out about her as an actress in the lack of use of her. She in basically a character actress, and I haven't seen her play any really elaborate roles. She made appearances in Traffic, Out Of Sight, Kate & Leopold, and two recent films: Far From Heaven and Solaris. In Steven Soderberg's remake of Solaris, she played a scientist on a doomed space craft orbiting a planet. In that film, she is confronted by George Clooney's character and she drawn to tears by what Clooney tells her in a particular scene. When I first saw Solaris, I remember seeing her tear up in the scene and thinking, wow, this woman can act. It was as if you could feel the character's grief. In that brief shot of her face, she gave so much expression and I honestly felt very sorry for her character's sadness and trouble in the film. I think she has definite potential as an actress and should be used more often perhaps in leading roles, rather than just as a character driven actress. Nonetheless, Antwone Fisher is a very good movie. Denzel Washington, as always, pulls off a great performance and he gives us a great directorial debut. Also, Derek Luke is a very talented actor. I think that Antwone Fisher will bring his immense critical fame for his portrayal of the troubled man, but I think that his public popularity will increase with the release of Biker Boyz, which also stars Lawrence Fishburn. Antwone Fisher is based on the book `Finding Fish: A Memoir,' by Antwone Quenton Fisher. ***",Positive "Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.",Negative "I used to write comments at IMDb, but I don't do so anymore. It happens that IMDb has become massive, and consequently subjectiveness has ruined scores. What do I mean? That anyone that is not particularly fond of movies and doesn't have any expertise on the subject, watches some crap (or the opposite), and in case he likes it, delivers a 10, and if he doesn't he goes for a 1. This of course, cannot measure anything correctly. Now for the film. I truly regret ever having delivered any 10s to some very few films, because then I must score this one with 12 or 13, which is not possible. This documentary has something that I don't expect to watch ever again in my whole life in any other film. It is simply mesmerizing, and it's not just a way of saying; it really is. The last 25 minutes have a load of energy, visual rejoice and wisdom -the words spoken by the starring guys-, that really... there's no possible match. I don't keep movies, rarely would I find any sense in doing so, but this one is the kind of film you should buy and keep, and watch from time to time, maybe 10 or 20 times as years go by. I got nothing more to say. This is a genuine, objective 10 for me.",Positive "Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), ""Mister Roberts"", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), ""Shane"", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) ""King Kong"" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS!",Positive "This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time.

The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date!",Positive "As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.

THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.

The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get ""involved"" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of ""folk hero,"" but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.

Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.

I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.",Negative "Sorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like ""Stormriders"" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like ""XENA"" or ""Hercules"" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!

My ASIAN-Tips: ""MUSA - THE WARRIOR"", ""STORMRIDERS"", ""SHAOLIN SOCCER"", ""BATTLE ROYAL"", ""VERSUS"", etc.

Sorry for my bad English!",Negative "This early Sirk melodrama, shot in black and white, is a minor film, yet showcases the flair of the German director in enhancing tired story lines into something resembling art. Set in the 1910's, Barbara Stanwyck is the woman who has sinned by abandoning her small-town husband and family for the lure of the Chicago stage. She never fulfilled her ambitions, and is drawn back to the town she left by an eager letter from her daughter informing her that she too has taken a liking to the theatre (a high school production, that is). Back in her old town she once again comes up against small-mindedness, and has to deal with her hostile eldest daughter, bewildered (and boring) husband (Richard Carlson) and ex-lover. The plot is nothing new but Sirk sets himself apart by creating meaningful compositions, with every frame carefully shot, and he is aided immeasurably by having Stanwyck as his leading lady. It runs a crisp 76 minutes, and that's just as well, because the material doesn't really have the legs to go any further.",Positive "OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!

The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of ""Jurassic Park"" meets ""Reign of Fire""..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI....

I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.",Negative "The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's ""Death Wish II"" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. ""D.W. II"" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). ""10 to Midnight"" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like ""The Evil that Men Do"" and the remaining ""Death Wish"" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.

""Kinjite"" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).

What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like ""The Mechanic"", ""Death Wish"", ""From Noon til 3"", ""Once Upon a Time in the West"", ""Red Sun"", ""The Great Escape"", ""The Magnificent Seven"", ""Rider on the Rain"", etc., etc....",Negative "I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of ""real"" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda.

As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the ""consciousness"" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term (""consciousness"") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay ""Politics and the English Language."" To refer to ""consciousness"" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as ""based in science"" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states ""democratic republics"" and Hitler when he called his party a ""socialist workers"" movement.

I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love ""instant enlightenment,"" and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).

By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several ""expert commentators"" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her ""Ramtha"" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of ""good"" and ""bad"" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)

What a mess.",Negative "If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!",Negative "I am not going to lie. Despite looking interesting, I watched The Notorious Bettie Page because I had heard (and it was fairly obvious just by looking at a synopsis or anything about the film), that Gretchen Mol got naked in it. I have never been a fan of Mol, but I cannot resist seeing an attractive woman taking off her clothes. Yes, that may be perverted, but its a theme and ideal central to the very core of the movie, and helps to make the film a lot stronger than it probably should be.

The film chronicles Bettie Page's (Mol) life from her physical and sexually abused days as a kid in high school in the South, and onto her new life in New York. She wants to be an actress, but she has to pay bills too. After taking a few seemingly innocent shots on a local beach, Page slowly becomes a modeling sensation, and quickly jumps from suggestive photos to sexually provocative pin-up photographs.

I feel the briefness of the film (just over ninety minutes) is both a curse and blessing for it. On one hand, the film never overstays its welcome. You get to know Page within a few short minutes, and then it gets right into her modeling career and does not look back. But it curses the film as well, because we never really get a chance to grasp everything that is going on. She just kind of jumps around between modeling shoots and the controversies that they create before jumping right into the major senate investigation that takes up much of the final act of the film. You just sit there, and attempt to absorb it all, and more just comes right at you. It feels like the filmmakers wanted to summarize too much material in too short a film. It begs for longer sequences, and begs more for even longer explanations. It does not feel rushed; it just does not feel all there.

Another bit of a fumble, although a bit more of a curiosity, is the use of colour throughout the film. The majority is in black and white, but frequently, splashes and sequences of colour do emerge. But while this may have been done as a symbolic gesture early on, it becomes a bit of a distraction as it continually pops up later on before cutting back to black and white. It gets confusing, and becomes more of a tedious interference than anything else as the film goes on.

While it may fumble a bit with the actions, the film stays dead-on with its themes. Page, who I know little to nothing about, is played off innocently, and her world is exactly the same. Save for a few shady characters during her teenage years, everyone she encounters is an innocent, and everything she does has an innocence to it. I never thought I would look at full frontal nudity as being something that was anything other than vulgar and depraved, but here, it truly is something to marvel at. All at once, it is beautiful and innocent. Even the most sexually perverted moments in the film (albeit tame compared to today's standards) have an innocent and angelic feeling to them. There is just something about the way Mol's nude body is portrayed that it just strikes at such a different chord than nude bodies in other films. It just feels so natural and so wondrous, that if there were any reason to watch the film, it would be to see the spectacular depictions of Mol's body as she plays Bettie Page.

The other reason is Mol herself. As Page, she exemplifies that 1950's Southern belle everyone knows (or can at least imagine). Despite her profession, she is still a normal person, and still looks at herself as being religious. Mol plays her exactly to the right amount of squeaky-cleanliness needed to make this character feel authentically from the 1950's. She plays her with such matter-of-factness that you would be hard-set not to think that Mol was actually Bettie Page herself.

Unfortunately, the supporting cast have very little moments to shine, and are totally overshadowed by Mol's wonderful performance. None of them do anything particularly pleasing, and none of them really have that same strength in their role as Mol does. This is not really the fault of the actors, but more of the fact that they do not have much to work with. Many of them are totally recognizable, such as Oscar-nominee David Strathairn (in a role a little too close to one of his better performances), Sarah Paulson (recent Golden Globe nominee for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip), and character actor Lili Taylor, but you would be hard set to really place their performance in being anything other than okay. None of these characters are really developed, and they really just stand as character cut-outs who Mol runs loops around as she picks up steam in her brilliant performance.

Really, this film is worthwhile for its portrayal of nudity, and for Gretchen Mol's excellent performance of Bettie Page. Everything else is a bit too muddled and awkward than it should be. Had more work been done to develop supporting characters and not just blast right through the story, this film would have been a much better biographical film. As it stands, it is just a vehicle for Mol to really rise into the stratosphere of popularity as an actress.

7/10.",Positive "Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.

Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.

The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.

Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story.",Negative "This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists)",Positive "This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.",Positive "Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.

Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.

Considering the following:

Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?

Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.

It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.

In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?

If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.

",Positive "Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.

Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.

I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of ""The Swarm"" ? q:)

Long live Monstervision!",Positive "I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his ""career"" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!",Negative "This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. ""Wilder Napalm"" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge.",Positive """The Woman in Black"" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch ""The Woman in Black"" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10.",Positive "A long film about a very important character from South Africa, Stephen Biko. He is one of these Blacks who did not survive apartheid, who actually died a long time before their normal time. The already old film though does not show how important Biko was, what he really represented. His life and his teaching is reduced to little, at best a few witty remarks. The film being from 1987, the objective was to push South Africa over the brink that would lead her to liberation. So the film aims at showing how irrational the South African supporters of apartheid are, in 1987. To show this the film has to look beyond Biko's death, hence to center its discourse not on Biko but on a white liberal journalist and his escaping the absurd system in which he is living. His escape is made necessary because of the victimization he is the victim of, along with his family, and because he wants to publish the first book on Biko, after his death, and that can only happen in England. The film shows a way to escape South Africa, while apartheid is still standing and killing. So do not expect this way to be realistic and true. It could not be. But the film has tremendously aged because it does not show South Africa with any historical distantiation, the very distantiation that has taken place under Nelson Mandela's presidency and that is called forgiveness provided those who want to be forgiven speak up and out. The film is strong and emotional but that very historical limit makes it rather weak today, especially since the film does not mention the third racial community, the Indians. Panegyric books or films all have that defect: they are looking at the person they are supposed to portrait from only one point of view. That explains why the film has aged so much, seems to be coming from so long ago, as if nothing had changed at all. A remake is necessary.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID",Positive "It is wonderful to watch Roshan Seth (the strict father in 1992 ""Mississippi Masala""), who once again takes on the role of a father and head of the family, and more, in SUCH A LONG JOURNEY, set in 1971 Bombay, India. Besides the closely knit family settings, subject matters include the lost and found of a friendship; the unexpected death of a friend (somehow the calm smiling face of a friend in death in the presence of prayers felt peaceful - so Gustad Noble, Roshan's character, similarly noted); a sidewalk artist's chain of events - ""the wall as a latrine turned into a shrine…shrine into rumbles and ashes"" was at once prophetic and philosophical. It's packed full of life lessons in different aspects of varying relationships: between father and son; mother and son; father and little daughter; little daughter and father and mother; longtime colleagues; long lost dear friends; even that of a man to man, one whose an innocent slow-witted ""fool"".

In spite of the tone of the film's era, it's a colorful film rich in substance, and the strength of the story in textural layers with humor and suspense. For a director who is not Indian (Sturla Gunnarsson being Icelandic), he's made a political Indian/Pakistani film. He gets into the bone marrow of the life of this Parsi portrayed by Roshan Seth, whose performance has such nuances, subtlety, and joy. (There is singing, too.) The rest of the cast is equally strong: from Om Puri the mysterious friend of a friend; Soni Razdan the enduring wife; Vrajesh Hirjee the argumentative eldest son; Sam Dastor the longtime office mate; Ranjit Chowdhry the pavement artist; to a superstitious ""witch"" woman of a neighbor; an unbeguiling ""fool"" of a man; and a long lost bosom friend - it's a world of many faces and perspectives. Director Gunnarsson has demonstrated sensitivity in the treatment of that time period and subject was well researched with attention to details. He has the good fortune to have Sooni Taraporevala (1992 ""Mississippi Masala"", 1988 ""Salaam Bombay!"") wrote the script. This is truly a worthwhile journey of a film to partake.

Along the lines of cultural exploration (road movie style), Fridrik Thor Fridriksson 1994 ""Cold Fever"" is an Icelandic sojourn about a Japanese young man who went across the globe in search of the specific spot to pay his last respects to his parents, dutifully following memorial rituals for the dead. Such demonstrated reverence and cross-cultural attention to family ties are heart-warming in this day and cyber age.",Positive "When I heard Patrick Swayze was finally returning to his acting career with KING SOLOMON'S MINES I was very excited. I was expecting a great Indiana Jones type action adventure. What I got was a 4 hour long (with commercials) epic that was very slow. The second and third hour could have been dropped altogether and the story would not have suffered for it. The ending was good (no spoilers here)but I was still left wanting more. Well all a guy can do is prey that Swayze does ""RoadHouse 2"" so he can get back into the action genre that made him famous. Until than if your a fan of King Solomon's Mines than read the book or watch the 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone which is also not very good but its only and hour and forty minutes of your life gone instead of 4 hours.",Positive "I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: ""No refunds!"" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell ""This movie SUCKS!"" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.",Negative "I'm sorry to report that I have seen this film several times. When it bombed at the box office, it was repeated nightly for about a month on HBO. And I watched it over and over because television in general is so bad--or was at that time. I no longer watch, so it might be wonderful now--like Samuel L Jackson says about swine, ""It might taste like sweet potato pie, but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mfer."" Let's see. Dudley plays Arthur wandering in the desert, always a few steps behind Moses. It came out right after Life of Bryan, so you can guess where the inspiration for this came from. The few mildly funny bits go on way too long until you just close your eyes and grit your teeth. There's one scene where Arthur and Dom Deluise meet in the desert, both of them dragged out and dessicated, dying of thirst. Then they meet like old acquaintances who didn't really know each other very well, promise to do lunch. It could have been funny.

But the scene that I remember most clearly is a meeting with pharaoh in which pharaoh is a black street kid done up in full King Tut regalia. He must have read the lines straight because at some point before the release, they overdubbed his scene with the Hollywood equivalent of black street lingo voiced by a Jimmy Walker wannabe (Kid Dyno-wannabe). Or it might have been Jimmy Walker--who knows? Who cares. They managed to turn an essentially boring scene into a very racist, very unfunny, very long piece of excrement, one of those legendary things that just won't flush, no matter how many times you try, so you leave it there for someone else to deal with.

Well that's my review. If you rent this movie (DON'T BUY IT, WHATEVER YOU DO!) prepare yourself with a bottle of tequila and a six pack of Corona.

Now that they've remade the Poseiden Adventure, this one is probably high on the list for remakes. Maybe they'll hire a comedy writer this time.",Negative "I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named ""The Curley and Larry Movie"". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.",Negative "Shannon Lee,the daughter of Bruce Lee,delivers high kicking martial arts action in spades in this exhilarating Hong Kong movie and proves that like her late brother Brandon she is a real chip off the old block. There is high tech stuntwork to die for in this fast paced flick and the makers of the Bond movies should give it a look if they want to spice up the action quotient of the next 007 adventure as there is much innovative stuff here with some fresh and original second unit work to bolster up the already high action content of ""AND NOW,YOU'RE DEAD"". When you watch a movie as fast paced and entertaining as this you begin to wonder how cinema itself was able to survive before the martial arts genre was created.I genuinely believe that movies in general and action movies in particular were just marking time until the first kung fu movies made their debut. Bruce Lee was the father of modern action cinema and his legitimate surviving offspring Shannon does not let the family name down here.Although there are several pleasing performances in this movie (Michel Wong for one)it is Shannon Lee whom you will remember for a genuinely spectacular performance as Mandy the hitgirl supreme.Hell;you may well come away whistling her fights!",Positive "I must say that I had wanted to see this film for a long time, and I was not disappointed. The acting of Dominic Monaghan is simply fantastic. As a part insomniac myself, I can relate with how the story develops. I have never experienced anything of the sort but some awake moments overlap the sleeping and it can be scary. It was a great film, worth every penny. I hope that one day I can work with Tess myself, it would be an honor and beyond. I can recommend it for everybody. Maybe not small children as they may get scared. But if you are an insomniac like me, you'll understand the world, the mysteries and the fear. You'll love it.

F.",Positive "Creative use of modern and mystical elements: 1956 Cadillac convertible to transport evil stepmother Kathleen Turner (John Waters' ""Serial Mom"") and the 2 twisted sisters; Queen Mab as the faerie godmother; David Warner (Evil in ""Time Bandits"") in redcoat at court; Cinderella (she's a babe) shovelling coal into an insatiable furnace; Cinderella and her prince charming both look like (and act like) rock stars. Isle of Man locations.",Positive "Just saw this tonight at a seminar on digital projection (shot on 35mm, and first feature film fully scanned in 6k mastered in 4k, and projected with 2k projector at ETC/USC theater in Hwd)..so much for tech stuff. 18 directors (including Alexander Payne, Wes Cravens, Joel and Ethan Coen, Gus Van Sant, Walter Salles and Gerard Depardieu, among several good French/ international directors) were each given 5 minutes to make a love story. They come in all shapes and forms, with known actors(Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi ..totally hilarious..., Maggie Glyllenhall, Nick Nolte, Geena Rowlands ..soo good..and she actually wrote the piece she was in, Msr Depardieu and many good international actors as well. The stories vary from all out romance to quirky comedy to Alex Payne's touching study of a woman discovering herself to Van Sant and one of those things that happens anywhere..maybe? Nothing really off putting by having French spoken in most sequences (with English subtitles) and a small amount of actual English spoken, though that will probably relegate it to art houses (a la Diva.) Also only one piece that might be considered ""experimental"" but colorful and funny as well, the rest simple studies of sometimes complex relationships. All easy to follow (unless the ""experimental"" one irritates your desire for a formulaic story. Several brought up some emotions for me...I admit I am affected by love in cinema...when it is presented in something other than sentimentality. I even laughed at a mime piece, like no other I have seen (thank you for that!) The film hit its peak, for me, somewhere around a little more than half way through, then the last two sequences picked up again. Some beautiful shots of Paris at night, lush romantic kind of music, usually used to good effect, not just schmaltz for ""emotions"" in sound, generally good cinematography, though some shots seemed soft focus when it couldn't have meant to have been (main character in shot/scene). Pacing of each film was good, and overall structure, though a bit long (they left out two of what was to be 20 films, but said all would be on the DVD) seemed to vary between tones of the films to keep a good balance. Not sure when it comes out, but a good study of how to make a 5 min film work..and sometimes, what doesn't work (if it covers too much time, emotionally, for a short film.) Should be in region one when released, but they didn't know when.",Positive "The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.

We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.

Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER.",Positive "Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.

Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.

While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.

The ""deeper"" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.

It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra (""knowledge belongs to mankind"") represents.

Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.",Negative "Completely ridiculous ""period"" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with ""the beast"", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.",Negative "Interesting characters, lots of tension. As close to black and white without being black and white. I was turned off by how casually the supposedly sympathetic mainstream character, a quiet, near deaf secretary, was able to turn to crime to ruin colleagues, rough up people in her way and finally participate in a heist, and set up someone to be bumped off as a decoy to her own get-away. I'm a little put off by the trend for otherwise quality movies to portray criminals in a sympathetic way without addressing the injury they've done to others other than to portray their immediate opponents as jerks. In this film we never know who's money it really is they abscond with, or what happens to the innocent wife who the sympathetic deaf-secretary uses to set up the of the sleazy bar owner to take the fall for the missing loot. Too bad, the film could have been great.",Positive "When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to ""unwatch"", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.

",Negative "Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, ""Jingle All the Way"" looked better than ""The Godfather"". ""Santa Claus"" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle.

Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.

My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins.",Negative "It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.",Positive "An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, ""Soul Survivors"" is the latest entry in the ""who's dead and who's alive"" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?",Negative "Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic?

* out of 4-(Bad)",Negative "Dick Tracy is one of my all time favorite films. I must admit to those that haven't seen it. You will either really love it or really hate it. It came out a year after the success of Batman. So everyone's expectations were so high that many were let down simply because the plot is so simple. But its based on a comic strip...what did you expect? Creatively, this movie is amazing! The sets, make-up, music, costumes, and the impressive acting make this film fantastic. The film has bloodless violence and no bad language - that's something rare these days. Directed, produced, and stars Warren Beatty as the ace crime fighter going up against Al Pacino's evil Big Boy Caprice and his mob of thugs. Madonna steals the show as the seductive Breathless Mahoney. This is one of the best characters Madonna has ever played. She has the best one liners I've heard! Madonna fans would love it! One of the coolest things about the film is that they only used seven colors to make it look like a comic strip. This film is truly a piece of artwork that is sadly overlooked by the public. To sum things up, this film brings out the child in all of us. It's a film that will leave you smiling at the end.",Positive """The Cobweb"" is an example of many examples of movies that feature strong, sometimes noteworthy performances and high points, but unfortunately are shattered and slowed down drastically by a murky plot and very little to interest the audience. It stars Richard Widmark as a doctor working at a mental institution whose life becomes in turmoil due to family problems and a rather ludicrous and overworked conflict that really seems like no big deal at all.

The plot is preposterous. Its time for the institution to get new drapes for the library windows. One old woman wants to have her drapes put over them, but a lot of the patients want to make their own. And somehow, this ridiculous and unintentionally loony conflict breaks out into the point where lives are in danger and families start to fall apart. It sounds more like a conflict that would occur between very young children.

The questioning of the logic of the plot and whether it could really happen is so massive that one wonders if only a real-like lunatic could buy it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the acting. The cast following Widmark is composed of other great actors, many of them Academy Award-nominees and winners. And there is occasionally a moment in the film that works out brilliantly, but it always excludes the stupid plot about window drapes. Unfortunately, there is too much about the doggone drapes and thus, the movie slows down. A lot of the takes are long and done from one camera viewpoint, adhering to the slow pacing and lack of viewing interest.

In a short analysis, ""The Cobweb"" is an unrecognized film and it becomes obvious why to the viewers basically as soon as the plot comes into focus, which it does pretty quickly. It just really doesn't sound like much fun to watch and I tell you that it is not much fun to watch.",Negative "This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called ""when you stub your toe on the moon"" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir ""Saggy"" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie.",Positive "I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.

When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future!",Positive "I get teased all the time by family and friends for my tears over movies, and they were not disappointed when I watched this one. I cried numerous times but believe me it was not over sappiness. I ached for the family and I ached for this man as he tried to redeem himself the only way he knew how. Denzel was fabulous as always, and so was Chris Walkin. Mickey Rourke, I did not even recognized though; the years have not been kind to him. My husband is not one to re-watch movies unless they are historically accurate war movies(snore!!!!) He has watched this movie 5 times now and I am going to have to get the DVD to watch it again because he has worn out the tape and it jumped the whole time I was watching.",Positive "THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film",Negative "I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.",Positive i love bed knobs and broomsticks so much that it makes me cry a thousand tears of joy every time i have the magnificent pleasure of seeing it. i would also like to reiterate the simple fact that i love it so much.too much some have said. i have 27 copies on video and i love them all equally. i also love anyone else who loves it. i love you. my favourite scene is the dance scene at portobello road. i have learned the dance moves and practice it everyday. i have some audio recordings of myself singing the song. if anyone can play the drums or guitar i am thinking of forming a bed knobs and broomsticks band.i hope to call it 'the knobs'. love me (liz),Positive "With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew ""They all laughed"" is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug ""in - joke"" self gratification you will be pleased to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails well clear of that particular hazard and delivers a sweet and rather innocent ""I love N.Y."" paean that is also an altar at which we can worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of minimal importance,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie. Mr Bogdanovich's triumph is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from ""Targets"" onwards.There is a glow about every one of his films that only special artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular benefits from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally ""Who the hell's in it?"", recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to ""They all laughed"" varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as eclectic as the city it portrays. Mr B,s ""Golden Boy"" image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,but it is equally sure one day to be restored,and when that day comes ""They all laughed"" will be recognised for the fine work that it is.",Positive "this is a great film!!!

I first saw this film when it came out. I just recently saw this film again and it still holds up to my memory of it. A lot of films we watched when we were younger don't seem to hold up when we watch them later in life. The film is actually a great 80's example of the type of films made then. Keaton is at his best, all the actors actually did a very good job and Ron Howard was very good at letting the story push the movie along instead forcing it. The pace of the film is fast with few slow spots and seeing the cars from the 80's is too funny. Being from the 80's I loved seeing the ugly pacer again. The film is a great film for any comedy lovers and 80's film lovers.",Positive "The female lead was a terrible actress which made the whole movie mediocre. She was smiling too much when she first went in front of the cameras to talk about her daughter. This should have made the police suspect her. I would have been inconsolable in the identical situation. She seemed way calm for a mother who could not find her daughter. It was as if she did not want to even be in the movie. Jennifer Aniston would have played the part better. And it would have made a lot more money for such a controversial, important subject. Everyone else was excellent. I don't know where the lead actress is but I hope she got some acting lessons.",Negative "Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.

I saw the original ""Wicker Man"" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's ""Invasion of the Body Snatchers"", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is ""The Thing"". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like ""The Wicker Man"" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.

This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.

The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient (""The drone must die!""), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. ""The Stepford Wives"" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.

The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage ""saves"" ultimately brings him death.

The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen ""Law & Order"" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.

So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.",Negative "William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.

The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.

I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.

Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a ""D"".",Negative "Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.",Positive "Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.",Negative "Cor blimey. This film really surprised me as it is a comedy masterpiece. Billy Zane is stunning as the central character, and everyone manages to play it straight enough for the comedy to be natural and easy.

The soundtrack is really good, and the set pieces are a joy to behold. I recommend that you watch this film with a bunch of mates, a few bottles of your liquor of choice, and prepare to be astonished and highly entertained.

This carries on so perfectly from kitsch masterpieces like Plan 9 From Outer Space that it is in the true ""B"" movie tradition. But what makes it more than that is the caliber of the people who took part in the film. Ron Pearlman for example. I still find my self giggling at the scene where Zane prances down a set of steps for no apparent reason in an almost ballet style. All a bit mad, and all the better for it.",Positive "As a lifelong fan of Dickens, I have invariably been disappointed by adaptations of his novels.

Although his works presented an extremely accurate re-telling of human life at every level in Victorian Britain, throughout them all was a pervasive thread of humour that could be both playful or sarcastic as the narrative dictated. In a way, he was a literary caricaturist and cartoonist. He could be serious and hilarious in the same sentence. He pricked pride, lampooned arrogance, celebrated modesty, and empathised with loneliness and poverty. It may be a cliché, but he was a people's writer.

And it is the comedy that is so often missing from his interpretations. At the time of writing, Oliver Twist is being dramatised in serial form on BBC television. All of the misery and cruelty is their, but non of the humour, irony, and savage lampoonery. The result is just a dark, dismal experience: the story penned by a journalist rather than a novelist. It's not really Dickens at all.

'Oliver!', on the other hand, is much closer to the mark. The mockery of officialdom is perfectly interpreted, from the blustering beadle to the drunken magistrate. The classic stand-off between the beadle and Mr Brownlow, in which the law is described as 'a ass, a idiot' couldn't have been better done. Harry Secombe is an ideal choice.

But the blinding cruelty is also there, the callous indifference of the state, the cold, hunger, poverty and loneliness are all presented just as surely as The Master would have wished.

And then there is crime. Ron Moody is a treasure as the sleazy Jewish fence, whilst Oliver Reid has Bill Sykes to perfection.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Lionel Bart - himself a Jew from London's east-end - takes a liberty with Fagin by re-interpreting him as a much more benign fellow than was Dicken's original. In the novel, he was utterly ruthless, sending some of his own boys to the gallows in order to protect himself (though he was also caught and hanged). Whereas in the movie, he is presented as something of a wayward father-figure, a sort of charitable thief rather than a corrupter of children, the latter being a long-standing anti-semitic sentiment. Otherwise, very few liberties are taken with Dickens's original. All of the most memorable elements are included. Just enough menace and violence is retained to ensure narrative fidelity whilst at the same time allowing for children' sensibilities. Nancy is still beaten to death, Bullseye narrowly escapes drowning, and Bill Sykes gets a faithfully graphic come-uppance.

Every song is excellent, though they do incline towards schmaltz. Mark Lester mimes his wonderfully. Both his and my favourite scene is the one in which the world comes alive to 'who will buy'. It's schmaltzy, but it's Dickens through and through.

I could go on. I could commend the wonderful set-pieces, the contrast of the rich and poor. There is top-quality acting from more British regulars than you could shake a stick at.

I ought to give it 10 points, but I'm feeling more like Scrooge today. Soak it up with your Christmas dinner. No original has been better realised.",Positive "What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?

Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters

My humble opinion = 0 / 10",Negative "This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?

Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.",Negative "I wont take too much time here, just wanted to state that Darkman 3 is awesome. I have all 3 on DVD, added these to my collection of DVD movie sets. Darkman ranks up there with the best, like Indiana Jones, Aliens, Star Wars, Die hard, you get the point. There isn't too many good horror, thriller, sets out there. Many thanks to the whole crew, and set for giving us the Darkman trilogy. By the way if your wondering how I came across this one on DVD. I purchased it through the internet, it is however region 4, as you know most US DVD players are region 1. If you own a Sony Playstation 2, you have the best DVD player since it is an all region player. Just go to set up then choose witch region setting you want ( 1-9 ).",Negative "On an overnight flight from Los Angeles to Miami, Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming man who turns out to be a hired killer who demands her help killing a businessman or else her own father will die.

Red Eye is a terrific thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The premise is similar to Cellular and Phone Booth but Red Eye is better than both of those films. Almost everything about Red Eye is above average including the suspense, the acting and the direction. Most of the film does take place on a plane but that doesn't slow down the movie. The film is very fast pace and exciting with no slow or boring spots. Wes Craven does a really good job behind the camera. Instead of focusing on the thrills, he focuses on the story and the characters. The movie does have its share of suspenseful moments but that's not what the film is really about. I also like the way Wes Craven focuses on the other passengers and the small details that become important later on. Red Eye really shows his skills at storytelling.

Red Eye also works well because of its young and talented cast. Rachel McAdams gives a very engaging performance and her character is hard to hate. You may even end up cheering for her out loud. Cillian Murphy gives a very creepy and effective performance as the villain. The way he acts charming at first but then turns psycho is especially impressive. The supporting actors are also pretty good which include Brain Cox and Jayma Mays.

The movie is also very stylish and it has this overall creepy vibe to it. The setting works well since there is an obvious fear of isolation and no escape. Overall, the tone of the film is consistently creepy. The screenplay isn't as strong as everything else though. There are a few unrealistic moments that may distract the viewer. Most of them didn't bother me but there were of few that left me shaking my head. Also, the ending is disappointing. It isn't a bad ending just a very simple one and a different approach would have been better. Since the movie focuses on the characters, there is really no scream moments maybe just a few jumps. If you expect a horror movie then you will end up disappointed. In the end, Red Eye is an engaging thriller and it's one of the best movies of the summer. Rating 8/10",Positive "A young girl surviving as a prostitute.

A cheap hustler who wants to get the big score.

They meet each other in Thailand. You may think by the opening titles it's going to be a violent movie but it is also a story of love with two persons in their own struggle to get the money for a better way of life. This film feels like an essay sometimes because of its changes of images, but still refreshing. This story is also about Eros and Thanatos. ""It's not an original joke but it is well told"" says a character and that also applies to this one: We've seen the story but this way we see it. Thailand appears in hot tones, the photograph going from one colored to a multicolored place. And it captures the city as the cage of this imperfect persons. There is also a good use of the music to dot the actions.",Positive "This movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, ""Manji, can we ask you a few questions?"" ""Sure."" ""We think you can help us with the answers."") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the movie!",Negative "It is not un-common to see U.S. re-makes of foreign movies that fall flat on their face, but here is the flip side!!! This is an awful re-make of the U.S. movie ""Wide Awake"" by the British!

""Wide Awake"" is strange but entertaining and funny! ""Liam"" on the other hand is just strange. I must give credit to ""Liam"" for one thing, and that is making it clear that I made the right choice in changing my religion!",Negative "When a friend gave me a boxed set of ""12 Amazing Scifi/Horror Movies!"" I was understandably a little cautious. But, since the item was a gift, I really didn't truly pay my common sense much heed. After all....movies for free! So what if they are a little ropey. After much consideration, Alien Intruder was the first of those movies. Ironically, it was first choice because it looked the best of the bunch. All I can say is, if this is the best of them, I shudder to think what the rest are like.

On the surface, it had some good things going for it. Four (count 'em!) actors that I was familiar with. Billy Dee Williams, Tracy Scoggins, Maxwell Caulfield and Jeff Conaway. I told myself...""Billy and Tracy have been in some good scifi (Star Wars and Babylon 5, respectively) so they wouldn't sign up for a turkey. Max is a veteran soap actor who never really managed to break into film....but not too shoddy an actor. An Jeff....well...he's done the good and the bad as far as films and TV go."" I was soon to discover that Jeff had decided to add ""the ugly"" to his repertoire of movies.

The first clue was in the opening scenes. Jeff mugs his way with gusto through an ""I'm mad"" scene before finally killing himself. An amusing cameo performance, really. Unfortunately this is, without much exaggeration, the highlight of the film. It goes downhill from there.

Next up we have the commander of the mission (Williams) who is being sent out to see what happened to Jeff and his crew busy picking his new shipmates from among the ranks of the criminal element. But this assortment aren't so much the Dirty Dozen - more like the Unconvincing Foursome. Plus, one of the crims, a computer hacker, is shown in his cell working away on a laptop computer. Isn't that a bit like letting a murderer run a gun shop in the slammer? Pretty lame prison, if you ask me.

When they finally take off the effects are truly horrible. It looks like the spaceship model was knocked up in an afternoon by some bored 8 year old who had parts left over from his Airfix kits.

But the horror doesn't stop there. Whilst on route to the area where Jeff's ship vanished, the criminal crew are rewarded for their good behaviour by being given weekends of virtual reality, in which they indulge their male fantasies. All well and good, and the use of scenes from their fantasies serves as an introduction to the ""Alien Menace"" which begins to appear there. But did they have to drag it out for quite sooooo loooooong? Alien Intruder? Alien Boring, more like.

Finally they make it to G-Sector and the alien presence makes them fight against each other for her affections until only good old Max is left. The ending, in truly optimistic rubbish film vein, hints at a sequel - as if! Also making an appearance in this movie is a character I'll nickname the ""Sweatdroid"". He's supposed to be an android, but apparently that fact was lost on the make-up crew, who provided him with sweaty features at any opportunity. But don't worry, he's just there to make up the body count numbers at the end.

Williams and Scoggins, to be truthful, do very little in the film. They only just barely stay awake, let alone act. And, as I mentioned earlier, Jeff gets an early trip to the showers, so his manicness isn't allowed to enlighten much of the film. Max tries his best, as do a couple of the other cast members, but the movie is just direly atrocious, to be honest.

The one, and only, half-way imaginative thing this movie offers is the ship naming convention. They are all named after musicians - Holly, Presley, Joplin. The rest of the film is bland and uninspired.

Made in 1992, I had thought, on initial viewing, it was one of those 80's straight-to-video jobs. Looks like they still made crap movies well into the 90's, it seems.

It's best avoided. Even as a beer n chips movie this film is a stinker, but at least you can fast forward it, I suppose.",Negative "I stumbled across this (Act-I) by pure dumb luck and this was more than a decade ago. This was'nt even what the cover label on the tape mentioned. It amazed me. It intimidated me. It shocked me. I eventually forgot about and almost a decade later, I happened to think about it again. Then went and bought both acts. They were even better than I had experienced at first.

My only complaint is that while the Tank Police keep on going on and on about being at war with crime, warranting tanks and heavy artillery, it would seem as though they are really having a hard time with criminals. That is either never shown or is simply a lie as they appear to be taking it easy most of the time. If that bit about being in a state of war was really propaganda, it certainly has not been shown as such.

I don't think the original Japanese version could have been any where as good as the Americanized version of this. But regarding the story, there has certainly been some proper explanations lost in translation but it can be excused.",Positive "I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10!",Positive """Ally McBeal"" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.

I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.",Negative "A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.

It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.",Negative I thought the children in the show did a very good job. I especially enjoyed the performance of the Emma character. Well done! The stunts were pretty good for a low budget show. I was able to follow the movie and enjoy it without having to look at my watch every 5 minutes.I enjoyed the scenes with the tooth fairy and the burning of her. The ghostly apparitions of the children's souls being released was also good. Another good point of the movie is that it kept moving along. There wasn't a lot of slow scenes. The adult leads were also believable and therefore helped to keep the show entertaining. All in all an enjoyable night of movie watching.,Positive "Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.

Still my wife thought Liam was cute.",Negative "Really, when it comes down to it, this movie is just not funny. Josh Kornbluth is the antithesis of funny, and yet he thinks he's hilarious. The plot about mailing the 17 letters was fine at first, until Josh's ""look at me, I'm wacky"" approach began infesting each and every scene. The Judas Priest joke may have been the least funny thing I have ever been privy to, and that is saying quite a bit, since it does have stiff competition from all the other jokes in the movie. And as for the incredible overuse of the Pixies' ""Debaser,"" I have just one thing to say: What did the Pixies ever do to deserve a fate like this? What did anyone do to Josh Kornbluth to cause him to write/direct/produce/star in such a terrible movie?",Negative "THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere, a young reporter (Emmy Smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (Joseph Haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh-eating zombies reputed to haunt the area.

An ABSOLUTE waste of time, hobbled from the outset by Haggerty's painfully amateurish performance in a key role. Worse still, the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine, made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by Brad Sykes, previously responsible for the likes of CAMP BLOOD (1999). This isn't a 'fun' movie in the sense that Ed Wood's movies are 'fun' (he, at least, believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts, despite a lack of talent); Sykes' home-made movies are, in fact, aggravating, boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue, and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative, badly-conceived junk. The 3-D format is utterly wasted here.",Negative "Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better ""Murder, She Wrote"", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.",Negative "I saw this director's ""Woman On The Beach"" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.",Negative "This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake.

This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, ""is doing time"" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.

Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he ""married the wrong sister""). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.

Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).

After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a ""good"" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.

Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.

Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period.

Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.",Positive "I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary.

Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.

I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film.",Positive "This is an excellent film dealing with a potentially exploitative subject with great sensitivity. Anne Reid, previously best known in the UK for her TV roles including 'Dinnerladies' (a Victoria Wood scripted series on in-company catering workers, if you're wondering), gives a performance of finely judged understatement as May, a late-60s bereaved mother of two chattering class adults in an inner-London borough. Her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan) dies on their visit to the male of the latter species (Bobby), and we see the pair being rather casually greeted by Bobby and his family. May's teacher daughter Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) lives nearby, however, and the relationship between May and Paula initially appears closer. Thus when May decides she cannot live in her own home and comes back to London, she is able to stay in Paula's house and do some child-minding of Paula's more appreciative offspring.

It is on May's visits to Bobby's house that she embarks on an affair with Darren, a mid-30s friend of Bobby who is working on a house extension. In what may be the first mainstream British film to so portray it, it is May and not Darren (Daniel Craig*) who initiates the encounter, and, at least to begin with, it seems that the relationship is founded on mutual respect. There is no explicit sexual content (at least in the DVD I saw: differences in the IMDb cast list suggests the existence of other versions), and the physical basis of the affair is handled directly but not exploitatively. More strongly portrayed is the relationship between May and daughter Paula, a recent convert to 'therapy and self-exploration', who announces that mummy has never been supportive of her. Paula is also Darren's lover, and when she finds May's explicit but rather poor drawings of Darren and May together, things go downhill in dramatic but controlled fashion. Only in an English film, perhaps, could a daughter announce that she is going to hit her mother, politely ask her to stand up, and duly wallop her.

In the mean time, May is being drawn into a putative relationship with a decent but older (of her own generation) member of Paula's writing group. The contrast between the ensuing unwanted intercourse and her affair with Darren is clearly made; it is at that point that May starts to acquiesce to Paula, and Darren's worm begins to turn (he reveals on cocaine that he may have been after her money, if not all along, but for some of the ride). So May finds herself superfluous to both of her children's needs, and finally does return home (but later leaves on a jet plane for pastures new).

The film's strength is that it portrays with unflinching but sympathetic truth the nature of contemporary adult parent-sibling relationships, where bereavement may leave the surviving parent feeling more alone than if they had no-one to care for them. This is not new, but the openness of the portrayal of sexual need in the over-60s may well be. The darkness of the film's content, from a screenplay by Hanif Kureishi, stands in contrast to the way in which it is lit (it seems to be perpetual summer), and the overall mood is uplifting - it could so easily have been yet another piece set in a dour and rainy England. The ending is perhaps under-written, as we don't know where May is going or for how long - perhaps she's Shirley Valentine with a pension, she's certainly no Picasso. Anne Reid is, however, revealed as a fine actor whose professional life will surely have changed forever. Like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain (said by Paul Newman), ""There goes your Mary Poppins {read Dinnerladies} image for good"".

* Yes, he: announced Oct 2005 as the new James Bond.",Positive "On the 26th of September 1983 a short dumpy 60 year old woman stood trial for the attempted murder of Leonie Haddad, a lady whose husband had recently died and had agreed to take in a lodger who came via a housing authority for the elderly. Haddad was not made aware that her new lodger had, in fact, come fresh from The Patton State Mental Hospital where she had been incarcerated for an inexplicable knife attack on a married couple three years previously. Haddad soon realised that something was 'rotten in Denmark' when the woman began to lock herself in the bathroom with a tape recorder reciting prophesies about' seven Gods'. Haddad's fears were confirmed one night when she awoke to find her lodger sitting astride her chest holding a bread knife announcing that ""God has inspired me to kill you"". Haddad managed to knock her assailant out with a telephone but not before she had lost a finger and suffered deep lacerations to her face and chest. It was a miracle she survived. The lodger was judged to be innocent by reason of insanity but sent, kicking and screaming, back to the laughing academy. Ten years later she was released and found that she was now a celebrity; but not for the brutal attacks on her innocent victims, but for her incarnation of 25 years earlier when she was known as the 'Queen of the Curve's, the 'Tennessee Tease' and 'Miss Pin Up Girl of the World' - the Notorious Bettie Page.

Director Mary Harron, mainly known for 'American Psycho' takes us back to the glory days of a legendary cheesecake and bondage model (played solidly enough by Gretchen Mol) who inadvertently wrote the blue print for fetish iconography and whose influence can be detected in everything from comic books to catwalks. T.N.B.P is day-glo fun ride through an evocative depiction of the 1950's where Page, with the familial help of good intentioned boyfriends and photographers, becomes the number one star of pocket sized men's glossies with titles like Wink, Tab and Parade. Her real dream of movie stardom evades her and a brush with the authorities over obscenity charges in 1957 is the inciting incident which leads her to retire from modelling and give herself to God. The overall style of the film is light and frothy and only darkens momentarily with an allusion to her father's incestuous attentions and a sexual assault which inexplicably appears to have no discernible effect on her. Mol plays Page as she seems in her photographs, happy, carefree and fun - even the bondage shots betray little more than a good humoured incomprehensibility. The film ends on the upbeat with Page cheerfully handing out bibles in a park with no indication of the real life unhappy marriages, personal tragedy and decent into murderous insanity which lay before her; avoiding what I think is the essential core of Page's story - rebirth and resurrection.

Having emerged from a decade of incarceration Page found that her cult had been in the ascendance since the mid 1980's and that she had become a huge underground icon, during which, many were asking ""whatever happened to Bettie Page"". Her 'mysterious' disappearance fed the fires of any number of conspiracy theories only adding to the allure of her legend. When the world's media finally caught up with her she gave no hint of her darker past and she was soon giving interviews for magazines, T.V and being photographed at Playboy parties with the likes of Pamela Anderson and the equally tragic Anna Nicole Smith. She found that she was now more famous than she ever was in her 'glory years' but in the glare of this 'resurrection' it was only a matter of time before the full story would come to light.

The only notorious thing about The Notorious Bettie Page is they left out the part when she became truly notorious.",Negative "If The Lion King is a serious story about a young lion growing up to avenge his father's death, The Lion King 1 and a half is the total opposite, full of whimsy and cheer. The Lion King told the story from the side of Simba the young lion, 1 and a half is from the view of Timone and Pumbaa, a less than perfect duo made up of a meercat who left home because he could not dig tunnels without burying his friends and neighbors and a warthog who has an odor issue. The movie is a little short on substance, but Disney does a good job of filling time with various sketches starring Timone and Pumbaa as they ""watch"" the movie with us. My favorite is the sing-along that happens halfway through the movie, make sure you watch the bouncing bug! Disney has advertised 1 and a half as ""the rest of the story,"" though it really isn't. It is just a different perspective of The Lion King, without all of the serious stuff that pervaded most of the second half of the original Disney classic. Credit Nathan Lane as Timone and Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa for their voice work, without their efforts, the movie may not have worked. The sing, they entertain, and they make us laugh. They also give us a reason to avoid a hot tub with a warthog.",Positive "I'd have to say this is one of the best animated films I've ever seen. I liked it the first time but really appreciated it on the second viewing, just a few weeks ago. I can see why sequel is doing such great business at the box office. Apparently, a lot of people liked this movie.

A gorgeous color palette (man, this looks good) and a lot of good adult (but clean) humor make this a big winner. The opening 3-4-minute scene with ""Scat,"" is excellent as are subsequent interludes with him. ""Sid"" the sloth (voiced by John Leguizano), however, provides the main humor in the movie. He usually has something funny to say throughout the movie.

Ray Romano is the voice of the mammoth, the big character of the film, literally, while Denis Leary is the ferocious bad-guy-turned-good sabertooth tiger

This isn't just humor and pretty colors but a nice, sentimental story of how a little baby softens up a couple of tough characters. This isn't interrupted with a lot of songs, either: one only brief one and there is nothing offensive, language-wise.

If more animated movies were this good, I'd own more.",Positive "Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.

I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both.",Positive "Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, ""Seven Pounds"" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.",Positive "If you really enjoyed the 2002 Resident Evil movie, then you should just see it instead of waisting 2 hours you'll never get back. I can not believe that no one has commented that this movie is just a cheap knock off of RE. First, a ""special"" commando force is the unique defense for a facility with a computer matrix that has an AI and holographic projection. And this ""Hive"" rip-off has a series of traps that inevitably kill off one member of the squad at a time. There's even a chess reference in the code names, which was in the dialog of RE. Despite the fact that there are no zombies, the ""Rook"", the movie's nemesis, is some sort of bio-creature, very pail in color suggesting necrotic tissue, with a lot of cyborg components just like a super mutant of RE. So, a wag-of-the-finger to Mr. Richard Taylor for claiming any credit for this story.

They are not the same movie obviously, but the writer got the idea watching Resident Evil I think.",Negative "This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.

Rating: 8",Positive "This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.

But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.

I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.",Negative "Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad.",Negative "In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.

A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.

Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people.",Positive "Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens.",Negative "In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.

The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.

The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.

Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.",Negative "The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.",Negative "

This is without a doubt the funniest comedy of the year. Everybody is brilliant. The acting is superb. You can see that the actors enjoyed making this film. It´s a shame to spoil the film with give aways, so rent it and laugh your ass off.

9 - 10.",Positive "i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.

the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying ""shaky cam"" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.

the ""plot"" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being ""minimalist"" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.

the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of ""mockumentary"" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.

if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.",Negative "This is one of the best animated movies I've ever seen in my life. This isn't just a fun movie, or a well-made movie. This is a landmark in the art of animation and even if it weren't, just the technical skill that went into making it, would grant it a place in the history of animation.

Wladyslaw Starewicz created a stop-motion movie about the secret life of beetles. He imagined a coherent world of insects, with jobs, houses, nightclubs, movie houses, even little props like posters and bicycles and paintings.

In this movie he tells a simple tale of hypocrisy and revenge. Mr. Beetle has an affair with a dancing dragonfly, much to the chagrin of a grasshopper; but he's a cameraman and decides to shoot the fling. Mr. Beetle returns home and finds Mrs. Beetle having her own affair. Mr. Beetle chases the lover away but forgives his wife. The two make up and go out to the movies. And the movie they watch is Mr. Beetle and the Dragonfly. Described thus it sounds banal, but once seen it becomes a gripping work of cinema. Along with Emile Cohl and Jiri Trnka, Wladyslaw Starewicz pretty much invented everything that future animators would use in their work. For that reason he must not remain forgotten.",Positive "A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's ""le feu follet"" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.

The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as ""our hero"",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.

This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps.",Positive "When this film opened back in 1976, legend has that it was met with massive jeering and disdain --- it was widely considered a failure. I vividly remember Ebert giving it one star and it was supposedly booed at Cannes.

Apparently these people didn't understand the movie, which is not that hard to comprehend since it's very esoteric, dark, and layered in ways that still astound me. Reading through many of the reviews here I find (even after about 7-8 viewings over the years) many elements of the film I had previously glossed over. But even without understanding much the psychological underpinnings of the story, it's still a cracking suspenser...even if you just take the escalating paranoia and persecution that overtakes Polanski's title character like a tsunami wave over the course of it's two hour running time.

Examining the source material --- an excellent novella by underrated novelist Roland Topor --- uncovers more intriguing layers. Polanski's Trekovsky is a milquetoast of the highest order. Though he seems at first to be yet another mild everyday soul, one gradually realizes he is one of those people who seems to aimlessly drift through life, letting it direct him. He seems to have few strong feelings about his likes and dislikes. He finds himself gently pushed this way and that, but never seems to get too bent out of shape regardless. This vague sort of wishy-washy-ness is more noticeable in the novel than the movie, but there are hints of it early in the film too.

Making a play for the apartment of a woman, one Mademouiselle Choule, who is in the hospital recovering from a recent suicide attempt, appears to be the most daring thing he has attempted (even effectively haggling down the price of the deposit in the bargain). He soon finds, however, that he is paying for his ""good thing"" in more ways than he cares, as he finds himself in the center of maelstrom created by a building full of neurotic, control freaks who are hypersensitive to even the slightest sign of human life, such as a footstep in the night or a knock on the door.

Instead of taking a stand though, Trelkovsky becomes increasingly alienated by the situation, and overtaken by paranoia and a sense of persecution. He becomes obsessed with Choule, imagining himself to be like her, dressing like her, etc. as his own personality rapidly begins to be wiped away by his own insanity.

If anyone has ever doubted Polanski's fearlessness as an artist, they'd be well-advised to see this film. His trademark black humor is prominently (and sometimes embarrassingly) on display here and --- god bless him --- he makes himself the butt of it. It's a tour de force performance in one of the richest, riskiest, most Gothic horror movies ever made. That more people haven't seen it is a true crime.",Positive Izzard was both hysterical and insightful in his humor. He definitely represents his own little niche in the comedic world.

It's a pity more Americans won't see this stand-up routine due to its PAL-only availability.,Positive i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :),Positive "******WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************

So who are these ""Mystery Men?"" Simply put, the Mystery Men are a group of sub-Heroes desperately trying to live out their adolescent fantasy lives while botching both their real identities and their super identities. The Shoveller (Bill Macy) works construction during the day, and at night, leaves his wife and kids at home while he cruises the street looking for crimes to tackle with his extraordinary and unique Shovel-fighting style. The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) sells silverware to newlyweds by day and flings tableware at crackpot villians by night, if his mom isn't keeping him busy with the latest snooping. Mr. Furious works in a junk yard to earn his pay, then takes out his frustration on his friends at night, tossing ill-conceived one-liners at friend and foe alike and threatening to get really angry (leaving everyone to wonder, So What?). Ben Stiller breathes such life into this character, you can't help but love him.

These three spend their nights trying to capture that 'moment of glory' they've dreamed about... becoming real Super Heroes. Obviously, it could happen. Champion City has Captain Amazing, after all... a flying, fighting super-cop with enough corporate logos on his costume to stop an extra bullet or two. Greg Kinnear turns in a stellar performance as a middle-aged sellout trying to recapture his fans attention in the twilight of his career.

To bring back that 'extra magic' that might win the endorsements again, C.A. frees Casanova Frankenstein, a WAAAAAY over-the-top menace played to chilling perfection by Goeffrey Rush. This lunatic genius has created a 'psychofrakulator' to warp Champion City into a reflection of his own insanities... and ends up capturing C.A. within hours of his release from prison. This leaves only the Mystery Men to stop Frankenstein's evil plan, but with such henchmen as the Disco Boys protecting Frankenstein, the trio are going to need a little help.

Recruiting commences, and after a painful recruitment party, the team settles in with The Bowler (Janeane Garofolo), who initially has the only real talent in the team, with her mystic bowling ball seemingly animated by the vengeful spirit of her dead father; the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell), who CLAIMS to turn invisible when ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is looking at him; the Spleen (Paul Reubens), granted mystically powerful flatulence by an angry gypsy; and the much underused Sphinx (Wes Studi), who is shown to be able to cut guns in half with his mind, then spends much of the rest of the movie spouting inane riddles and acting over-wise.

This film really is a cross-genre romp. Anyone wanting to pigeon-hole films into neat little categories is fighting a losing battle. This is a spoof/parody of the superhero genre - from the pseudo-Burton sets recycled endlessly (and occasionally decorated with more spoof material) to the ridiculous costumes, the comic-book genre gets a pretty good send-up. But at the same time, it is a serious superhero flick, as well. Both at once. While not a necessarily unique idea in itself (for example, this movie is in some ways reflective of D.C. Comic's short-lived Inferior Five work), it is fairly innovative for the big screen. It offers the comic-book world that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept anyway, then throws in the inevitable wanna-bes - and we all know, if superheroes were real, so would these guys be real. If the Big Guy with the S were flying around New York City, you'd see a half-dozen news reports about idiots in underwear getting their butts kicked on a regular basis. Sure, the Shoveller fights pretty well, and the Blue Raja hurls forks with great accuracy - all parts of the super-hero world. But does that make them genuine super-heroes? Only in their minds.

This movie is also a comedy, albeit a dark one. Inevitable, when trying to point out the patent ridiculous nature of super-heroics. One-liners fly as the comic geniuses on stage throw out numerous bits to play off of. Particularly marvelous is the dialogue by Janeane Garofalo with her bowling ball/father. Yet, it isn't a comedy in the sense of side-splitting laughter or eternally memorable jokes. It mixes in a dose of drama, of discovery and of romance, but never really ventures fully into any of it.

What really makes Mystery Men a good film, in the end, is that it is very engaging. The weak/lame good guys are eventually justified and, for one shining moment, really become super-heroes; justice is served; and the movie ends with a scene that reeks of realism (as much realism as is possible in a world where bowling balls fly and glasses make the perfect disguise). If the viewer stops trying to label the film, then the film can be a great romp.

Of course, no movie is perfect. Claire Forlani comes off as bored and directionless as Mr. Furious' love interest, in spite of having a pivotal role as his conscience. Tom Waits seems somehow confused by his own lines as the mad inventor Dr. Heller, although his opening scenes picking up retired ladies in the nursing home is worth watching alone. And the villians are never more than gun-toting lackeys (a point of which is made in the film). The cinematography is choppy and disjointed (such as happens in the average comic book, so it is excusable), the music sometimes overpowers the scenery, and the special effects are never quite integrated into the rest very well.

Yet, overall, this film is incredible. You probably have to be a fan of comics and the superhero genre to really appreciate this movie, but it's a fun romp and a good way to kill a couple of hours and let your brain rest.

8/10 in my opinion.",Positive "This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting.

The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging.

Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing.

The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.",Negative "I could never remember the name of this show. I use to watch it when I was 8. I remember staying up late when I wasn't suppose to just so I could watch this show. It was the best show to me. From what I remember of it, it is still great. This showed starred Lucas Black making him the first boy I ever had a crush on. I am from the country, therefore boys with an accent have no appeal to me, but for him I would definitely make an exception. Which after seeing Crazy in Alabama, Friday Night Lights, and Tokyo Drift you should see why. He is a great actor and has been since he was a kid. I miss this show and wish it would come back out. If anyone ever sees where they are selling the season please email me. kywildflower16@hotmail.com",Positive "I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.",Negative The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.

Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low.,Negative "save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it.",Negative "Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10.",Positive "So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible ""Shrek"" might enjoy, but ""Wallace & Gromit"" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as ""Shrek.""",Negative "There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...

The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.

From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.

Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...",Negative "I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.",Negative "I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!",Negative "Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.",Negative "Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in ""Bruce Almighty"" and Will Ferrell ""Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy"" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those ""hip"" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.",Positive "Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.

Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!!

2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy).

3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that

4. The horrible accents!!!

5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!

I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!

I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D",Negative "This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me!",Negative "This series premiered on the cable TV station ""Comedy Central"" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see ""The League of Gentlemen"" in order, complete and uncut.

""The League of Gentlemen"" troupe is right up there with England's ""Monty Python's Flying Circus"" and Canada's ""The Kids in the Hall"". But..a warning.

""The League of Gentlemen"" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY.

These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is ""dark humor"". Bravo!",Positive "This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up.

It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved.

The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.

Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.",Negative "I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar ""I confess"" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).

Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?

Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?

I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: ""Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop.""

Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.",Negative "Well, let me start off by saying how utterly HILARIOUS this film is, I simply couldn't keep myself from laughing at the sheer stupidity of it. Don't get me wrong, it IS well acted particularly by Bassinger but the script is just, well the mind boggles truly.

The premise is good and up until Della actually witnesses the murder it is engaging but after that it just goes downhill . Half way through the film the protagonist pulls out her toolbox and of course instead of lobbing it at the guy's head, she decides to pull out a screwdriver, car jack and finally a flare (as in for a sinking ship) respectively to kill her victims.

Then there is the final line that I promise, if it doesn't have you in stitches then I will eat my own left foot.

I would recommend this film to those who simply want to laugh at some good old fashioned, appalling film making. Might I also suggest you watch out for the scene in the scrap yard with the guy falling from the one foot high plank of wood, gets me every time.",Negative "Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, ""What are ya? Some kind of nut?""). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from ****",Negative "A great film requiring an acquired taste. If you're into action, wham bam films and hate serious love stories then its not for you. Otherwise, if you like to sit in front of a good intelligent movie now and again I recommend this very highly. Easily the best film produced in Bollywood this century.

The only other Indian film I would give 10/10 for is Dil Wale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Even then it comes second to this masterpiece.",Positive "I was quite pleased to find this movie in the local video library - Cary Grant in a comedy set in the services, director Stanley Donen, so far what's not to like? It's the sort of film that has me wondering two things - when did all involved (including some well-known names) realize they had a turkey on their hands, and what's the worst thing about it among a number of contending aspects? Still pondering the first, but my vote for the latter goes to the meandering storyline, ahead of the wordy sometimes pretentious script, the uncertain tone, the lack of consistent and well-developed characterization, and the lack of rapport between the characters. You have to add very uneven acting to the criticism but it's understandable that the actors were struggling with this stuff and in addition seem under-rehearsed. Quite often they can hardly get their lines out quick enough. Cary Grant tries to portray his usual charming and urbane persona but at times seems uneasy and staccato in his delivery. I have to say however that I was relieved when the initial suggestions his character will be paired with the unspeakably vulgar Jayne Mansfield go away with the appearance of Suzy Parker. What's to like about the film? - for me chiefly the beauty of Parker who also acts with restraint and a Grace Kelly-like dignity. Generally speaking the film is nice to look at. The naval characters are very smart in their uniforms - however you have to truly wonder at the ghastly black Fu Manchu tunics they don in their luxury hotel suite. Even Grant can't look elegant in his. Back to the credit side, Ray Walston does a commendable job with his character and for me there was an interest in hearing a pre-Hogan's Heroes Werner Klemperer speak without an assumed German accent!",Negative "There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. ""Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it"". He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play ""dumb dumb *duuum*!"" after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of ""was this guy evil or what"", incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10",Positive "This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.",Positive "John Scott (John Wayne) and partner Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler) are trail buddies who make their way to the Rattlesnake Gulch rodeo. Scott is a pretty fair contestant, but finds that unless he's willing to accept twenty five cents on the dollar in prize money from a crooked promoter, he'll have to collect his winnings at gunpoint. Quite coincidentally, bandits Pete (Al Ferguson) and Jim (Paul Fix) decide they'd like the rest of the rodeo take; they shoot promoter Farnsworth (Henry Hall), and make it look like Scott and Kansas Charlie are the killers.

Wayne and Chandler use a running gag in the film where they're about to go at it with their fists over various trivialities. Each time Chandler takes a wild swing, Wayne foot stomps him and knocks him silly.

If you're very attentive, there's a neat Lipton's Tea ad in one of the scenes in which Scott's love interest Anne (Mary Kornman) appears.

Later on in the film, the buddies are framed once again over a stage robbery. Having a change of heart and seeing the error of his ways, bad guy Jim wants to come clean and confess to the sheriff, but Pete shoots him down. While being patched up, Jim tells his story to the doctor and his sister Anne. In an unbelievable scene, Anne marches right into the middle of a gunfight between the good guys and the villains to confront the sheriff.

""The Desert Trail"" is one of the blander John Wayne Westerns from Lone Star Productions during this era. Noticeably absent are George ""Gabby"" Hayes and Yakima Canutt, one or both are usually to be seen in these oaters. If you're a John Wayne fan though, you'll have to see it once, but that will probably be enough.",Negative """Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?"" ""Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it"". ""And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us"". ""Wow this thingie gives off vibes!"" ""Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open"". ""Hi there handsome, check out my nips"". (Later that day); ""DO NOT OPEN""!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. ""I've never seen such organic technology!"" ""Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it."". ""I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!"" ""Look! it's the friendly aliens from ""The Abyss""! They want us to come with them"". THE END",Negative "This is one of the greatest films I have ever seen: I glowed inside throughout the whole film. The music and cinematography held the spell when little was happening on screen. The slow pace was set by the mode of travel (a riding lawn mower with a big trailer) and was maintained by the background sights and sounds and the slow-paced lives of the other characters.

The story actually happened; Alvin Straight died in 1996 at the age of 76. There was no acting; everything was completely real, as if the actors had actually transformed into the characters. Sissy Spacek gave a poignant performance as a somewhat disabled daughter who had suffered much but forged ahead, always wanting to do the right thing. Richard Farnsworth was cast perfectly and he beautifully became Alvin Straight, a stubborn but loving elderly man who treks across Iowa to visit his estranged brother, Lyle, who has had a stroke. Alvin had learned much wisdom during his life and that seemed to bring out the best in the people that he encountered along the way.

The film underscores the importance of family to this man and, hopefully, to all of us. I eagerly anticipate seeing it again, and again. Directed by David Lynch, this films proves his directorial skill. Farnsworth was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor; at 79, he was the oldest nominee ever for that award.",Positive "This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.",Negative "Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of ""The ring."" The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!",Negative "Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.

Even ""Silent Hill"" was scarier. Heck, even ""Pan's Labyrinth"" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.

To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use ""pidgin Russian"" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.

Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.

Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.

I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.",Negative "This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about ""Gigli"", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. ""The Order"" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan (""10 Things I hate About You"", ""A Knight's Tale"" and particularly his supporting role in ""Monster's Ball""), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like ""The Order"" and ""Four Feathers"" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.

Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of ""Matrix Reloaded"" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.

As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.

1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.",Negative "What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a ""big name"" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.

At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.

It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.

Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of ""spot the Kiwi bit parters""; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.",Negative "Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc).

The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense.

There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end.

The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.",Negative "This movie is proof that film noire is an enduring style, and extremely worthy of stay alive. For me, it is he best example of film noire since Chinatown.

It will, unfortunately, never get the recognition it deserves. It was never promoted properly when it was first released and has had to build its cadre of fans through venues like Vanguard Cinema and word of mouth rental referrals.

I highly recommend that people looking for something more than mindless entertainment rent this movie and delved into its highly convoluted plot.",Positive "slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie.",Negative "It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.

This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.

The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.

Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only.",Negative I saw this in the theater during it's initial release and it was disturbing then as I'm sure it would still be. It was the first part of '68 and this was still making the rounds in towns across America and there had recently been a mass-murder in my hometown where I saw this where a man went on a shooting rampage. The freshness of that close-to-home event combined with this dramatized true story made for a very disturbing theatrical experience. It really brought to life the excellent acting of Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. I was familiar with the novel based on the true event by Truman Capote and the screenplay and direction by Richard Brooks wove the event and Truman's interpretation into compelling gritty cinematic adaptation. Music from Quincy Jones effectively scores it's story. I've only seen this a couple times since. It was too real. Almost like being a witness to the crime itself and riding along with the killers. I would give this a 9.0 of a possible 10. Society is so desensitized to violence and crime today that this probably seems slow and tame and could be viewed with less effect but to anyone over 50 this will be a hallmark into the examination of the criminal psyche.,Positive "Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense.",Positive "Oh, it's the movie - I thought I waited too long to take out the dog... I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I guess I was optimistically anticipating that it was going to get better. Horribly disjointed dialog, pathetic acting, and totally improbable events. Like Toby's mom hanging herself in the time it takes Col to walk upstairs and back down in a room with a 24' ceiling and no chairs, counters or anything around her motionlessly suspended body that she could have possibly used to climb on to do herself in. The little girl that played the daughter of the last family was the best actor in the whole movie, and the puppy of the first couple was a close second. The basic storyline has potential and with a good script and director could be a seriously creepy flick, but this version sadly is not it. I get more scared when I open my electric bill every month.",Negative "Very interesting. The big twist wasn't as big a shock as maybe they had hoped for and it was very dated but it did get my mind working. It really got me thinking about a world without vegetation or livestock and made me appreciate the world I live in a lot more. Charlton Heston does a good job, as do all the supporting characters, and it was a very realistic film which was surprising. It lacked direction at times and a lot of the settings and background needed more explanation but it was still a surprisingly good and intelligent movie. The main fault that I could find was that I didn't want the film to end when it did, I would have liked to see what happened next.

7/10",Positive "I can't believe currently this movie is rated a 6.9. Anyway this movie was probably one of the most touching real Indian movies I have ever seen. It was really refreshing to see a movie that showed traditional family cinema. As for the story I thought it was great it was about shahid kapur being set up on an arranged marriage with amrita rao. He is kind of a happy go lucky kind of guy, while Amrita Rao is a traditional Indian girl who is very helpful to her uncle but the only problem is her cousin doesn't seem to get as much attention as she does so her Aunt dislikes Amrita with a passion. This upsets Amrita because she just wants her aunt to love her. It was also very touching to see that although Amrita's family wasn't that rich maybe just middle class to lower class, while Shahids family was quite upper class, they still treated their family with respect and didn't even ask put them down which really struck a nerve with me. This is because i've actually seen people being very rude to people who are not as well of thinking their below their standards which i feel is very shallow. This movie showed that shahids family was willing to look at the great values that Amrita had been brought up with and turned a blind eye to the fact she wasn't a rich business tycoons daughter or anything. All in all this movie deserved an 8/10 I wish more and more of these kind of movies were made.",Positive "I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.

Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.

Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.

DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.

Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.",Negative "SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10",Positive "Why do people bitch about this movie and not about awful movies like The Godfather. Titanic is the greatest movie of the 21st Century.With great acting,directing,effects,music and generally everything. This movie is always dumped by all because one day some one said they didn't like it any more so most of the world decided to agree. There is nothing wrong with this movie. All I can say is that this movie, not only being the most heavily Oscar Awarded movie of all time, the most money ever made ever and sadly one of the most underrated movies I've ever seen. Apart from that it is truly the best movie of all time. The only movies that come close to being like all the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything by the masters Hitchcock or Spielberg or Tim Burton. These are all good movies and directors but none match up to James Cameron's Masterpiece TITANIC.",Positive "I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced ""nuclear"" as ""nu-cu-ler,"" just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the ""nu-cu-ler"" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere.",Negative "The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold.",Positive "I rate this 10 out of 10. Why?

* It offers insight into something I barely understand - the surfers surf because it's all they want to do; Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing; Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is a great history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. None taught me what this movie did * The movie was very well edited. It flowed well. The interviews were outstanding * It's interesting from start to finish

In summary, it's about as good as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 10/10",Positive "I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. ""Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny."" Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.",Negative "I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...

Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.

I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.",Negative "Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.

When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.

Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.

The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In ""Scoop"", Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.

Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of ""Scoop"", seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity.

""Scoop"" is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen.",Positive "The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a ""walker"" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.

I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the ""artistic"" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.

The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a ""walker"" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.

As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.

Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.",Negative "This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that ""Freddy's Dead"" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this ""film"" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.",Negative "The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful ""twists"" are everywhere.

2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.

3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.

4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.

The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.

As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.

b) People who often think to themselves, ""I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..."" There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?",Negative "My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from ""Meet Me in St. Louis"" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in ""Wizard of Oz"". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.

I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.

10/10",Positive "Love trap is a ""must see"" independent film. When I sat down to watch the movie, I came in with low expectations, but left with a blessing. The story is poetic, substantive, and creative. The writer pulls you in further and further which each scene, allowing you to relate to the realistic characters that every one can identify with. The movie allowed me to reflect on my life and what I consider love to be. The movie displayed what love really is, action not emotion. I was also impressed with the quality of the cinematography and the soundtrack of the movie. The entire presentation surpassed my expectations. I give the movie two big thumbs up and recommend it to everyone of all ages and all backgrounds.",Positive "Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.

Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.

It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.",Negative "This movie has great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time!",Positive "I don't buy kung fu movies for a plot. I buy them for fight scenes. A bad plot can be forgiven for excellent fight scenes, but not the other way around.

The story was decent, but moved too slowly for my tastes. There were about 3 or 4 mediocre fight scenes throughout, lasting only a couple of minutes apiece. The last fight was a bit longer, but by that point i was so bored i didn't even pay attention to it.",Negative "Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.

I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 ""horror""-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like ""they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie..."" .. but they did.

Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.

*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes ""okay now he can set this fire thing to work"" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.

Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.",Negative "I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.

Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded.",Positive "I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.",Negative "A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the ""bed"" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching...",Positive "It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.

Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.

However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final ""survivor"" from very early on.",Negative "This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.

So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).

There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.

Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?

Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.

Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.",Negative "Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of ****",Positive """Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark"" is a sort of ""Harper Valley P.T.A."" with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle ""Vinnie"" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. ""Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark"" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of ""Grease."") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!",Positive "I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a ""7"" rated movie!",Positive "This movie is great, the music ""with the exception of the very first song in the movie"" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick!",Positive "I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: ""You sons of a thousand fleas"".

It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.

10/10",Positive "Tromaville High has become an amoral wasteland of filth thanks to the aftereffects of the nearby nuclear plant's accidental release of toxic waste.

Unrestrained chaos crammed with absurd violence and crude behavior. Rather horrible, obviously intended to be, mess of a film with the filmmakers cutting loose the reins allowing the untalented cast free reign to ham it up. Craft was far down Troma's list of objectives for this gory sleazefest. The honor society are punks with eerie face paint jobs and wacky outfits. The German teacher who becomes a member, through a ""toxic kiss"" has the streaks down one side of her face that really gave me the creeps.The toxic monster, which dispatched the ANNOYING punks towards the end, is pretty cool, though.

Kind of movie trash connoisseurs will embrace wholeheartedly.",Negative "Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome.",Positive "OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.",Negative "To make a film straddling the prequels and the ""real"" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.

To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.

The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.

Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent!

No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls",Negative "I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three out of 10.",Negative "I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this ""movie"" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.

This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux ""24"" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.

Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.",Negative "Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.

While watching ""Bang"" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness.

Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.",Negative "This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.

Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical ""obsessed killer"" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.

AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.

Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget.",Positive "Though the story is essentially routine, and the ""surprise"" ending is nothing but a bad joke on the audience, you can see what attracted these good actors to the project - it offers them the kind of roles in which good actors can shine, and shine they do. The film is impeccably made - for its time. It was remade in 2000 as ""Under Suspicion"" and if you only want to see one version of the story (that's all it deserves, really), I recommend the latter one, with Hopkins' up-to-date direction and the more explicit references to plot points that the original could only hint at. The ending, however, still blows. (**1/2)",Positive "This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the ""family business"" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!

We're treated to a unique story in ""Panic,"" and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.

More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable.",Positive "Fantastic movie. One to excite all 5 senses. Is not a true historical report and not all information is to be taken as factual information. True Hollywood conventions used, like playing A list and VERY attractive actors as the 'heroes', such as Naomi Watts (Julia Cook - Ned Kelly's lover), Heath Ledger (Ned) and Orlando Bloom (Joe Byrne - Ned's right hand man), and unattractive (sorry Geoffrey Rush) actors play the drunken and corrupt Victorian Police Force. This also instills a very unreliable love story into the mix between Ned (Ledger) and Julia Cook (Watts) to entice all the romantics, females being especially susceptible. Even from the first scene, when Ned saves the fat youth from drowning and his dad calls him ""sunshine"" and had a ""glint in his eye as he looked down at me, his hand on me shoulder,"" it is very romanticized and persuades viewers to side with Ned Kelly, the underdog. Besides, don't all Aussies love an underdog?",Positive "Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, ""Before Sunrise"" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.",Positive "...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity.

Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to ""Manos, the Hands of Fate""... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me.

This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the ""heroes"" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them!

To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it.

This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy.

Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.",Negative "Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's ""Anna and the King of Siam"", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of ""Uncle Tom's Cabin"" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****",Negative "end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10.",Negative "How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).",Negative "Despite what others had said (*cough*), this is my favourite movie of all time. I don't know how long I had been waiting to see it, but once I finally did, I immediately fell in love. Sure, it's strange, but that just gives it more of an exciting flavour. For those who don't know, Moonchild is one of Gackt and Hyde's first movies. They haven't done very many at all, maybe 3 or 4 tops each. So, give them some credit. We all know that Adam Sandler wasn't the best at first either. I do believe that they do throw some odd situations in there, but I over look that to find the best points of this movie, the emotions displayed and whatnot. Therefore, I have given, and always shall give, this movie a 10 out of 10.",Positive "I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.",Negative "For everyone who expects a traditional superhero-movie it might be an unpleasant surprise. It is definitely more of a drama rather than an action movie. It focuses mainly on emotions and it's a bit like a Greek tragedy - whatever the main character does it always goes wrong somehow.

That's because Sasha, like each superhero, takes the law into his own hands and the society doesn't appreciate it. Sasha becomes an outlaw. While on the run, he meets a beautiful girl and falls in love so things get even more complicated for him.

As you can see, the plot itself is really dramatic but the movie lacks in dynamics. It reminds me slightly of the narration in the recent movies by Ram Gopal Varma. Everything happens very slowly. However, when there's an action scene it gets so immensely dynamic that before you realize what's going on, it's all over. But the director does not want to impress us with flashy and showy action. What is more important here is the outcome of Sasha's actions, which are mostly very drastic. The score is very scarce, which also makes it more difficult to concentrate on the film. So basically you need to be very patient in order to watch it.

Is the film worth it? That is a question really difficult to answer. I don't think that this experience enriched me so very much, but somehow I keep on thinking about this movie and feel like watching it again. Mostly due to the atmosphere, which is really dense, but not suffocating because all the time Sasha and Katya have hope. After all they're young people, who have all their lives to live. So no matter how hard it gets there's always a slight joyous tune when they are together.",Positive "I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape.

Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.)

The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her.

Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds.

As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending!

The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves.

The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK.

Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical ""entertainment"". 10/10",Positive "This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really ""kept it real"" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.",Negative "Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused.",Negative "This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen.",Positive "They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.

One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other ""bank"" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.

Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.

The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.

If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges.",Positive "Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.

The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.

Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.

Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see.",Negative "A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout – actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count – since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here).",Negative "Well executed old and very dark house horror. Good set-up which includes the character of Poe, himself, alluding to the story in a London pub. Although from here it is pretty much the one guy who has taken the dare to visit the house on a particular night running from room to room either looking for or avoiding people, it is still most enjoyable. Plus we have the delightful and enigmatic Barbara Steele. There is some wooden dialogue and some unexplained bits and bobs but it is the super creepy atmosphere that is maintained throughout, that and the super musical score that keep this one moving nicely along. DVD originates from US and has a few extras",Positive "Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else.",Negative "Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.",Positive "Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.

Potential minor spoilers ahead.

I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables (""Kanedaaa!"", ""Tetsuoooo!"", ""Huh?"", ""Grrr"", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.

The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.

What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking ""what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over"". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.

The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.

Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with ""adult"" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in ""South Park"".",Negative "Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a ""Star Trek"" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works

1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.

2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...

in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers

Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!",Negative "I had to see this gem twice to really appreciate all of it. When a widowed father of two interrupts his two sons' sleep with a shocking revelation, they are torn between believing him and not. As the horrifying events of this tale unfold, we learn a lot about the father, about his two sons, and about their destinies. With shocking twist after shocking twist, this film never allows for a lull in the plot. Bill Paxton plays the father, but the most notable performances are that of his older son, Fenton, played by Matthew O'Leary and his younger son, Adam, played by Jeremy Sumpter. This is one of the best thrillers that I have seen in a while, and you will want to watch this a few times to appreciate every intricate aspect of the plot. I give this film a 9/10.",Positive "This is an amazing film, both for the incredibly energy evoked from the frenetic flamenco dancing, and from the unique way that the filmmakers interweave the story of the stage production with the lives of the characters preparing for it. Spellbinding is the only word I can use to describe the experience. This is not 'Bizet's Carmen' by any usual standard. This is not a usual film by any standard. Every nuanced glance, every stomp of the foot, every piece of the music is intertwined so captivatingly that you can't take your eyes off the screen. You don't need to love opera or flamenco(I don't)to be captured, enraptured, enthralled by this film. Subtle and direct; loud and still; One of, if not the best, movies of it's kind, because there are so few like it.",Positive "This film is mesmerizing in its beauty and creativity. An artist's profound vision, his art that springs intuitively from its natural source brings us an inspiring Hosanna, blending his creations with trees, white water dashing against rocks, fields and rain...Andy Goldsworthy makes the viewer feel joy in being alive, aware that we are all made of the clay of this glorious earth. He doesn't spare us his occasional frustration, but on the whole we see the miracle in joining art with nature. Credit also goes of course to the filmmaker, Thomas Riedelsheimer, who directed, photographed and edited the movie with incredible sensibility and perfect timing.

If you have any feeling for beauty, nature and art...do not miss this fantastic film!",Positive "Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with ""The Fast and the Furious"" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.

My Grade: B-

DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; ""0 To 60"" featurette; ""Wild Rides"" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult ""Painted On The Heart"" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for ""Shanghai Noon"", ""Mission to Mars"" and ""Coyote Ugly""",Positive "Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...

Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.

Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!

With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...

Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense.",Negative "Townies is the laziest movie I have ever seen, and I saw the Blair Witch movies (parts one and two). It seems confused in what it wants to be. It's not funny enough for comedy, it's not tragic enough for drama, it's not bloody enough for horror, and it's not good enough for watching. It has scenes of a man doing ""slapstick/bloody"" karate so I think, oh this movie will be in the vein of Toxic Avenger and Street Trash. Then it leaps without warning into a drama about a missing girl, a retarded (mentally handicap) woman and a trusting mother. Then it slaps itself into the ONLY good part in the movie which seems to be set up like a sitcom without the laugh tracks. The part I'm speaking of is a lonely TOWNIE who is so lonely he finds comfort in a rotting corpse. That was the ONLY part of the movie that gave me ANY feeling. The rest was a waist of my life. Then, just to show how CRUEL Wayne is there is a kind of DOCUMENTARY at the end of the film of Wayne (the Director) making fun of Toby (the star) in public. It made me sick. Even though Killer Nerd and Bride of Killer Nerd (two other movies by Wayne) aren't the best, they at least are thought out enough were you can stay entertained until the ending credits. I even like Killer Nerd a bit, it had some great lines I still use to this day.

If you like underground films, if you like overground films, and if you like to watch your feet, just resting were they are, you will not like TOWNIES!

*1/2 (out of ****)

",Negative "Follow-up to 1973's far better ""Cleopatra Jones"" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from ****",Negative "To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the ""big waves"" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money.",Positive "If you're watching this movie, you're either a Fred Olen Ray fan, you found it on the $4.99 shelf at Suncoast and thought ""what do I have to lose?"", or you spun around the video store with your eyes closed and rented the first movie your finger touched.

This movie is hysterically bad. It's got everything a terrible movie needs: a screenplay featuring jaw-dropping dialogue and baffling detours in the plot, wacky science involving psychics and other dimensions, continuity that seems to travel through wormholes in time and space, actors that are not only wooden, but seems to border on befuddled, gratuitous nudity (not all of it is what you necessarily would ask for), and of course, a 5' monster played by what I assume is Fred Olen Ray's kid.

Underneath it all, however, there is something resembling heart -- as if Mickey & Judy decided to get together all the kids in the neighborhood and make a monster movie (hey! my dad can direct it! yeah! We can use red paint from my johnny's dad's hardware store, and I know this ex-stripper who can act in it!).

Watch for the blooper reel over the credits -- you get to find out why the final cut of the movie was so crappy.

Incidentally, Biohazard II...the Alien Force is also worth a look, but doesn't have the same enjoyably crappy veneer this one does.",Negative "Eglimata (= Crimes) is a story about little crimes everyday people commit that in a crazy scenario could lead to the absolute disaster.One of the smartest Greek series ever!Actors like Ketty Konstadinou and Maria Kavogianni showed a whole new dimension of themselves and talent and gave us moments of incredible 'guilty' laughing.Every viewer seemed to recognise the bad side of their self in one of the characters or at least a side of their self they wish they had. Actors of every age that played bigger and smaller parts gained an equally big space in Greek audience's heart.My personal favourites (apart the first two i mentioned)are Vassilis Haralambopoulos, Athinodoros Prousalis and Stavros Nikolaidis but so many amazing actors passed by some episodes from time to time. Whoever around the world understands Greek should find a way to watch this series,even though it's been more than 5 years that it was on TV.In Greece they keep repeating the series (ANT1) in every chance there is like summertime or early afternoon zones.We'll never forget Eglimata or any of the casting crew!",Positive "First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.

Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.

The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I ""vividly"" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.

Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.

(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)",Negative "Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.

Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played ""Sulley""). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.

However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking ""THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!"".

I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the ""Scary Movie"" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something!",Negative "Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The ""guinea pigs"" for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading ""actress""). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and ""horror"" aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore!",Negative "This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.",Negative "I remember this film from many years ago. Certainly the best film on the subject in my experience. The fact that I vividly remember so much of the film after so long a time testifies to its impact.

It is difficult to comment on the level of the performances because of the language barrier. But they were nonetheless very powerful.

This subject continues to fascinate us even with the passing of years. And it was most effectively treated here, with the proper proportion of historical perspective and skepticism.

I wish it would be shown on TV at least once. Or at least be available on tape or DVD. Or is it? Is some art film archive hoarding a copy of it??",Positive "Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.",Negative "This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.",Negative "This film is something like a sequel of ""White Zombie"", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up ""The Hills Have Eyes"" then this film has hope.",Negative "JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night.",Positive "Why this movie has all but disappeared into obscurity is an absolute crime. ""Conan"" is perhaps the only Sword and Sorcery movie better. The brutal violence, cool character designs, and good pacing, make this one of the best fantasies around. It is certainly the greatest animated movie aimed at a more adult audience that I have ever seen. This is not similar to Bakshi's usual frenetic style. It's quite a departure for Bakshi, and in my opinion his best work. I hope that this film gets the recognition it deserves.",Positive "This film was the worst film I have ever viewed. It was like a ""homework assignment"" for a film class. It totally misses the mark when it comes to the ""message"" it is TRYING to relay. Characters are over exaggerated, poor acting and as for a plot...well it is utterly ridiculous. The cover shot is what made me think it may be a decent film, the co-actor is handsome and that's about it. Moral of this movie: NEVER JUDGE A MOVIE BY IT'S COVER! Save your time, money and energy and make your own home movie and you will be far better off than I. It was painful to watch and quite frankly I am surprised that anyone would spend money to make and distribute it!",Negative "My favorite memory of this show and the band was when I got together with a bunch of my friends which are NBB haters and had a big bonfire and we took a CD of their songs and the DVD of the movie and a bunch of pictures of the band members and threw them into the fire and danced a happy jig around the burning stuff while singing ""Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead"". That was the best thing about the show and this show is stupid with a capitol God this show sucks. I hate it so much. Get rid of the crappy car. You guys really suck! You really ruined the whole channel! No offence or anything but you guys need to get a life, I mean, really, who makes a stupid show with a stupid lead singer that can't even sing! You guys really sound horrible and need to get a life as hobos or something, except Roselina. She's really pretty. But still, you guys reak!",Negative "With the runaway success of ""God's Army"", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent ""The Other Side of Heaven"", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. ""The Singles Ward"", however, is not.

Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of ""The Singles Ward"" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy ""Ferris Bueller's Day Off"". However, the similarities end there. While ""Ferris Bueller"" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), ""The Singles Ward"" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.

In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas ""God's Army"" and ""The Other Side of Heaven"" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny.",Negative "One doesn't get to enjoy this gem, the 1936 Invisible Ray, often. But no can forget it. The story is elegant. Karloff, austere and embittered in his Carpathian mountain retreat, is Janos Rukh, genius science who reads ancient beams of light to ascertain events in the great geological past…particularly the crash of a potent radioactive meteor in Africa. Joining him is the ever-elegant Lugosi (as a rare hero), who studies ""astro-chemistry."" Frances Drake is the lovely, underused young wife; Frank Lawton the romantic temptation; and the divine Violet Kemble Cooper is Mother Rukh, in a performance worthy of Maria Ospenskya.

The story moves swiftly in bold episodes, with special effects that are still handsome. It also contains some wonderful lines. One Rukh restores his mother's sight, he asks, ""Mother, can you see, can you see?"" ""Yes, I can see…more clearly than ever. And what I see frightens me."" Even better when mother Rukh says, ""He broke the first law of science."" I am not alone among my acquaintance in having puzzled for many many years exactly what this first law of science is.

This movie is definitely desert island material.",Positive "After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable.",Positive "Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.

The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.

I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.

Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10",Negative "You've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).

Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).

Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheets—what have we done to deserve having to watch it again?",Negative "Modern, original, romantic story.

Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.

Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me.

Conclusion : good movie.

Les Pays-Bas : huit points.",Positive "Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word ""fag"" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.",Positive "GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).

The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?

I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, ""I want to do something from a woman's point of view"". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.

To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: ""Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness"". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.

Camera Obscura --- 1/10",Negative "This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the ""lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies"" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.

And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.",Negative "Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.

This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.

Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.

The ending is absolutely unbelievable.",Negative "Spoiler This movie is about such a concept. Williams will go to any low in order to replay the football game that haunts his life. Russel plays the ex jock who peaked in high school. Finally the under dog get its shot, and Williams can save face, instead of being the clown. A great reverse tragedy. 7/10",Positive "I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!",Negative I absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :),Positive "Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt (""You can call me God""), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional ""funny"" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's ""Easy to Love."" Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on ""The Carol Burnett Show"" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot",Negative "How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an ""expert"" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the ""land of Nazis"" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning ""we are the world"" European to make a ""real"" movie about America.

Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong ""foreign policy"".

P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is ""sheer genius""!!",Negative "American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie.",Negative "Man's Castle is a wonderful example of a Pre-Code film. It involves realistic events with truly enjoyable and imperfect characters. Spencer Tracy plays Bill, a free soul without a dime in his pocket. He makes a living doing odd jobs and traveling to a new city when he gets bored of his surroundings. One night, he meets Trina, a beauty by any standards who is cold and alone. She has refused to resort to prostitution so she has not eaten for several days, but the two take very well to each other and form a relationship. His free spirit tempts him to leave her, so life is rocky, but there is a true spark between the two, even if they live in a shack by the river.

Tracy is one of the great actors of the silver screen. His characters are amazing and relatable. We can see his thoughts on his face, making him easy to identify with, even if we believe he is behaving badly. Young is great in pre-code films. Her character is very sweet but far from perfect, making her all the more likable.

Pre-code elements include skinny dipping, pregnancy before marriage, and crime.",Positive "This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS!",Negative "Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on ""Zero Woman, The Accused."" Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.",Negative "Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different ""locations"" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.",Negative """A Mouse in the House"" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.

This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».

If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the ""rear"" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too.",Positive "The young lady's name is Bonnie (Polay). She's attractive, is apparently living a pretty decent life, but all of a sudden is inexplicably snatched from her home and life by Evil Dude and the Various and Sundry Evil Henchmen. Now she has no idea what the hell is going on, only that a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth people apparently want her dead...and she's going to die not even knowing why.

God, I hear the whining all the time. Now that content is so cheap to produce and people can create their own movies/books/comics/internal organs, there's going to be nobody to ensure that there's a standard of quality! We're going to be drowning in crap! The only people who actually think this are people who haven't watched any movies or read any books recently-- because we're already doing a dead man's float in crap. It's folks like Ferrari and Rodriguez who put the lie to these ignorant so-and-sos by throwing $8K on the table and making...well, what I would say is a better action flick than anything you've seen in cinemas this year...but you haven't seen any action flicks in the cinema this year. I've seen the box office. You're staying away in droves. You would do better to snag a copy of this, spend twenty minutes being entertained, and get on with your lives.

It's sheer entertainment. You enter, like Bonnie, with a lot of questions and where the whole thing ends up is nebulous. The whole conceit has been done before in multiple ways but not in such a compressed amount of time and not without such concentrated tasty gunplay. You're there for the atmosphere, the mystery, and the guns. That's it--that's all the filmmakers promise, and they deliver.

It warms the black pits of my heart to think this was made on such a budget. We get passed a goodly number of indie films around here, but seldom do we see anything as polished as this short is, and we've never seen one done in the action genre that looked this good. Hell, you could hand these two guys MI: 3 and it might draw me into watch it. The Bond franchise. Hell, anything. No, in fact, better yet: I'd like to see these guys make a feature on their own and stay the hell away from Hollywood. Whatever's out there killing the movie industry is no doubt infectious.

Best indie we've seen in a while and the most effective indie calling card we've ever seen. The DVD's $20 and has bonus features out the ass. Go take your movie ticket budget and put it towards this instead.",Positive "I generally love these 1930 mystery/police Charlie Chan type of movies, and this is no exception. However, something seems bad with this movie. A late attempt to switch from cerebral Moto movies centered around the plot contrivances to a salad bar spoilt by comedy relief that is as relieving as sore feet. A typecast buffoon appears from nowhere impersonating a clumsy Englishman who plays the detective, and even other characters seem entangled into providing comedy relief. The plot may seem odd or a bare excuse to us today, but back then the possibility of epochal archaeological discoveries was not only real, but a commonplace occurrence.",Positive "Interesting, fast-paced and amusing.

I'm not one of those people who watches loads and loads of television. I stumbled across this show while home sick with a bad case of the flu one day, and was immediately hooked. I developed quite a crush on John Burke. Both he and Claire did an amazing job of hosting the show together. You could really tell that they both loved their jobs.

The super-collector segments were excellent. I found myself interested in things I had never previously given a single thought to.

What I would really like to know is: Whatever happened to Jack the dog? Did one of the hosts adopt him?",Positive "I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la ""Meet the feebles"" But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!",Positive "Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!",Negative "The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.

I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.

The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.

Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.",Negative "I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like ""whats new"", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this ""get a clue"" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes",Negative "This movie is probably my favorite movie of all time. Miriam Flynn is excellent as Bunny Packard. Zane Buzby as Delores is comic genius. The rest of the cast is amazing, and the film is really really funny. A definite satire of horror films, with a zany twist. If you enjoy a fun, comedy filled evening, then go and rent this classic. You'll laugh all the way through!",Positive "This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.

Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far.

A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.",Negative "I really enjoyed this -- I'm a big fan of movies that mess with your mind and leave you with a lot of questions and ideas to debate, and this was a stellar example. But then, Terry Gilliam is always good at that (well, almost always. Let's just forget about Jabberwocky and The Brothers Grimm, shall we?).

I particularly liked the way it handled the time travel theme and the avoidance of paradoxes -- the way events in the past and future intertwined and fed into each other.

It was also really well done aesthetically -- the art direction was really great, and I wish I'd been able to see it on the big screen. The future scenes had a similar feel to Brazil in a lot of ways, and even the present scenes were often really visually compelling.

But perhaps the most striking thing about it was that it featured two actors I normally don't much like, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, and they both delivered amazing performances here. Pitt especially -- I'd seen one or two films before that made me realize he could in fact actually act (contrary to what I'd originally thought), but this one really outdid them. I actually found myself asking my friends at one point ""Are you SURE that's Brad Pitt?"" This is probably the most memorable performance of his career (though admittedly that may not be saying too much).",Positive "The story would never win awards, but that's not what it's about... the script was just entertaining and suspenseful enough to make room for the incredibly choreographed fight scenes. Who needs a story with fighting like that? Really, it's worth watching for that reason alone. IF you can handle the gore, of which there is a LOT... none of it done realistically enough to be tough to look at. I gave it a 7.",Positive "In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)

First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!

This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper!

Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.

The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!

This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season.",Positive "Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...

I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood!",Positive "First of all I am a butch, straight white male. But even with that handicap I love this movie. It's about real people. A real time and place. And of course New York City in the 80's. I had many gay friends growing up in New York in the eighties and the one thing about them i always admired was their courage to live their lives the way they wanted to live them. No matter what the consequences. That's courageous. You have to admire that. This is a great film, watch it and take in what it was like to be a flamboyant African American or Hispanic Gay man in the New York of the eighties. It's real life. Bottom line it's real life.",Positive """Nacho Libre"" (2006)

Directed By: Jared Hess

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose

MPAA Rating: ""PG-13"" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog)

Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that ""Napoleon Dynamite"" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of ""Napoleon Dynamite"", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as ""Saturday Night Live"" or possibly even ""Mad TV"", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.

Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with ""School of Rock"" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor…of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.

The performances in ""Nacho Libre"" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.

""Nacho Libre"" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of ""Nacho Libre"": yes, the cast. This cast was just…well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's ""Napoleon Dynamite"" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with ""Nacho Libre"". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that ""Nacho Libre"" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.

Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical ""Napoleon Dynamite"".

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)",Negative "If you ""get it"", it's magnificent.

If you don't, it's decent.

Please understand that ""getting it"" does not necessarily mean you've gone through a school shooting. There is so much more to this movie that, at times, the school shooting becomes insignificant.

Above all, it's a movie about acceptance, both superficially--of a traumatic event, but also of people who are different for whatever reason.

It's also a movie about unendurable pain, and how different people endure it. In this case, the contrast between Alicia's rage and Deanna's obsession creates an atmosphere of such palpable anxiety that halfway through the movie we wonder how the director could possibly pull a happy ending out of his hat. Thankfully, the audience is given credit for being human beings; our intelligence is not insulted by a sappy, implausibly moralistic ending.

Above and beyond that, I try to keep a clear head about movies being fiction and all that. Yet I must admit, I cried like a lost little baby during this movie. There were certain things about it that hit *very* close to home and opened up some old wounds that never quite healed. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.",Positive "These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.",Negative "Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.

The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard ""uses"" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.

I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.",Negative "I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....",Positive "From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

""The House Where Evil Dwells"" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film ""Ju-On: The Grudge"" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.",Negative "Why did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.

However, as my ""one line Summary"" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;

Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking ""I really should have got some ice-cream"". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?

Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.

Reason 3: One word - Cliché

Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. ""A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!"" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?

In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards.",Negative "Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller ""The Sentinel"". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like ""In The Line Of Fire"" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.

Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.

4/10",Negative "Jane Eyre has always been my favorite novel! When I stumbled upon this movie version in the late 90's I was ecstatic! This is the best and most complete version of the book on film! This version is a little long to sit through in one sitting but well worth it. Timothy Dalton is amazing as Rochester. I was glad that they cast a normal looking actress (Zelah Clark) as Jane and not a glamorous person. I love the sets and the location. For anyone who is a true Jane Eyre fan, this is the version to watch!!! For those of you who are interested, I just found this version on DVD. I have watched my VHS copy almost to breaking so I was thrilled to find it on DVD.",Positive "Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.

BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.

Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.

I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.

That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.

If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.",Negative "As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no ""men"" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.",Positive "I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable.",Positive "This movie sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my ""Dukes"" dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't ""The Dukes"", it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!",Negative "(spoilers??)

I wasn't sure what to think of the movie. Not too much of a kids film. Definately should be watched with a parent because it includes death and dying. But I was surprised that I was a bit entertained by it.

I was a bit disappointed by the 81 minutes of time we had. (even less without the credits) And the trailer gets you to think the rodent is a main creature. But alas, they torture him. Right until the end of the movie. Those two gripes docked the movie 2 stars. But I do recommend the movie. Even for a sequel.

8/10

Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable:7/10",Positive """Cut"" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher ""masterpiece"", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.",Positive "Richard Dix decided to retire and so Michael Duane took his place playing the role as Ted Nichols who meets up with a young French girl named Alice Dupres Barkley, (Lenore Aubert). This couple only knew each other for two days and they decided to get married by a Justice of the Peace (Judge) and it is pouring rain when they pull up to the Judge's home and find out he is not home and will not return until the next day. As the couple are inside the house you see some one lift up the hood of their car and takes an automobile part from the engine. Once you see this event happening you realize this couple is in for a big surprise and the story beings to reveal a very mysterious event which surrounds Alice Barkley and so poor Ted Nichols starts out with plenty of trouble and no marriage. Good mystery, but I missed Richard Dix. Enjoy.",Positive "How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.

Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.",Negative "With lots of sunshine, gauzy light and shadow filtering through windows and into rooms, tracking shots moving through crowds with hand-held camera, quick-paced editing and extreme close-ups here and there, the photography is the thing in this interesting, artistically done film.

The plot of this film starts out as a bit of fluff about a beauty contest. The film begins on a warm Sunday at the local swimming pool, where we meet the lovely Lucienne aka Lulu (played by Louise Brooks) - a bit of a show-off in front of the gawking men by poolside, she soon decides to enter herself to represent France in the Miss Europe beauty contest, much to the chagrin of her very jealous, stick-in-the-mud fiancé (a pretty annoying fellow, really). Strutting down the runway the ten contestants display themselves in swimsuits, while the winner is chosen as the contestant who receives the longest applause (I was wondering, couldn't the girls just walk slower to prolong their length of time - and thus applause - on the catwalk?!). Lulu is soon being chased by a Prince and a Maharaja, but her hot-headed beau doesn't like the attentions paid to her by other men or her adoring public, for that matter (I guess he just wants her in his house, cooking his meals, and staying out of sight, eh?!).

Louise Brooks is beautiful and charming, her presence helps enhance this film, but it's really the way it is photographed that held my interest the most. A bit distracting is the odd dubbed sound, which is a bit off. The print on this version looked very clear and full of nice contrast though. Watching this I just tried to overlook the sound problems and watch the film visually, and I found the movie to be excellent, well worth seeing.",Positive "This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.

One and half stars.",Negative I am completely shocked that this show had been cancelled.Ity only lasted one year.I just recently started watching it and I love it.Its a show that could of gone as far as Friends went.It had the humour and was extremely enjoyable.

It is about 2 brothers and 2 sisters living under one roof without their parents.Kurt(Joey Lawrence) plays the part of the oldest sibling and takes on the more fatherly role.

This should of lasted much more than year as it was fantastic. Amazing show with all the best actors.

10/10,Positive "This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for ""serious"" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.",Negative "I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.

I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.

",Positive "A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to ""the Iranians."" Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of ""Silk Stalkings"" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged ""drama""...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked ""one-liners"".",Negative "I've written at least a half dozen scathing reviews of this abysmal little flick and none get published, so I must opine that someone at imdb.com really likes this awful movie. The idea that a bunch of oilmen can resurrect a military tank that has set in the desert for over a decade, and make a fighting machine of it again is ludicrous. So is the acting and direction. Pass on it.",Negative "This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.

The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.

By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.

It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.

Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.",Negative "Somewhat funny and well-paced action thriller that has Jamie Foxx as a hapless, fast-talking hoodlum who is chosen by an overly demanding U.S. Treasury Agent (David Morse) to be released on the streets of New York to find a picky computer thief/hacker (Doug Hutchinson), who stole forty-two million dollars from the treasury and left two guards shot dead.

""Bait"" marks the sophomore feature for Antoine Fuqua (""The Replacement Killers"") and he handles the task fairly well even though it doesn't top his first movie. What the two films have in common is the action sequences, which are flat-out excellent.

Foxx is pretty good here although his character is annoying in the beginning, but throughout the film, I began to catch on. Hutchinson is marvelous as the mastermind who can be ruthless as John Malkovich and patient as the late Laurence Olivier was in ""Marathon Man"". Morse is okay as the agent who comes up with the ingenious plan to get whoever did it at all cost.",Positive "Why didn't Dynamo have any pants?! Where did they go?? It was never explained. That's why this movie was so awesome. Plus Starsky gave his kids the AIDS!!!! Great acting too. Richard Dawson deserved to win Best Supporting Actor! A I D S My favorite line from the movie was ""That hit the spot"" A I D S. This movie was for the ""birds"". I tried to give this movie the ""stinkeye"" but it continued playing. What am I doing wrong???!!!! I thought the ""HATEBOAT"" was funnnny lol ;) I would like that for a show. Why wasn't Dynamo wearing pants. I know his arm WAS skewered but... What's up with those crazy futur nets. Why didn't that family feud guy Ray Combs get a net?? He could have used one. AIDSSSSS",Positive "While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.

From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example ""Witchboard"", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf ""Warlock""). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.

I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.

The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.

Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.

For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.

And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point.",Positive "It was the tag-line ""in the tradition of American Pie"" that fooled me into renting this movie. What I got was a piece of junk in the style of Jackass, with the major difference that compared to this Jackass the Movie seems like a Citizen Kane.

This movie made me regret that I rewarded other movies with 1 out of 10, because now I can't go beneath that. This one makes quite some bad movies look like cinematic feats.

I actually turned it off after 45 minutes, and that's something I very rarely do. But it was just too plain boring, stupid, uninteresting and unnecessary.

Can't believe some people actually reward this with 10 out of 10. What did your parents do? Drop you on the head when you were just a child? Or was it the very first movie you ever saw, so you got nothing to compare it to? Are you still a virgin and are breasts all you ever think off? Something must be wrong, at least.

My advice: stay clear of this one. Even if your in the mood for a simple movie that doesn't require thinking, choose something else, or you'll regret it for sure.",Negative "Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere.",Positive "I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.

At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.

First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.

Figure that out.",Negative "So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time.",Negative "Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-""comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life"" sitcom now mutated into a ""how you should deal with your problems""-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called ""movie"" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in ""Reality Bites"" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.",Negative "*****WARNING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS TRIPE.****

Heres some good advise to anyone living in the U.K. Whenever Channel 5 has an old 80's comedy on late at night, read a book instead. I am currently in the process of recovering from a seizure, due to reading some of the comments on this film on here. I am actually shocked at the fact that someone actually said this film was realistic! All I can say is thank god the Cold War never escalated or else we might as well have given the Commie's our borders... I found this film dire in the utmost pretence, maybe it is just my British perception of what makes a film funny, who knows? But in all aspects, this film is not just awful, its teeth grindingly terrible.

I've never been a fan of Bill Murray, and its rubbish like this that justify my feelings towards him. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ghostbuster's, which was made only three years after this film. But this just sums Bill Murray up really. I can safely say that I haven't wasted my time so blatantly like this since seeing the first running of Operation Delta Force over here, though these two films have more in common than you would think. For 1 thing, they both have terrible action sequences from beginning to end, and 2nd. They are both riddled with cheesy Cliché's, throughout.

Heres one thing, these guys are supposed to be in the ""U.S Army"". Yet they are allowed to wallow around their Camp, Willy nilly, seducing female Military Police Officers, and subsequently shagging them silly in the Generals Quarters. Talk about Random! This film is just terrible for this I'm afraid. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist sympathiser, but the fact that these two women actually fall hands over heels in love with the two characters shortly after arresting them, letting them go free... Twice, is just insulting to the female race. The fact that one tatty haired, fat lipped bum (Winger) and his hapless sidekick Ramis can simply sweet talk themselves into into the MP's underwear, to which they fall madly in love with the two of them is nothing short of ludicrous.

Then there is the training scenes, where you get to meet the Squad ""Phycho"" who unconvincingly threatens to kill anyone who touches him or his stuff, followed by the overweight bloke (played by the late and great John Candy) who claims he joined the army to ""avoid paying $400 for anger management classes"". Leading to loud mouthed Murray paying tribute to the ""Giant Toe,"" (WTF?) 'Drill Seargent' who honestly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery, let alone his band of recruits. All this scene serves to do is to prelude loads of fight scenes, with people saying ""way to go ass hole'!"" all the time, etc etc.

The scenes then carry on showing the rag tag bunch making utter tits of themselves on the Assault Course, leading to a scene where one of them shoots wildly into the air at some passing birds with an assault rifle, peppering a watch tower with bullets. (Just like that. Yep, told you this film was random...He miraculously escapes undisciplined as well...) Eventually Leading up the the passing out parade, where the hapless squad make a magic turn around within the space of two hours. (Bugger me, Miracle!) Thanks to some wise words from Murray, to which they then direct a massively none military like dance routine in front of a Geriatric 'General' in front of the rest of the squads. All of this to the immense pleasure of their two Girlfriends on the stand, who really should've been arresting them... Everyone laughs it off though. This bit is nothing short of amazing though. He then chooses them to guard a new Multi-Million Dollar Prototype Armoured Vehicle in Italy (which turns out to be just a mobile home painted green with loads of gadgets on the inside), claiming ""This is exactly what this Army needs!"" righto...

Then there is the dire finale, where Murray and Ramis decide to steal this top-secret prototype Military Vehicle to pick up their newly acquired and somewhat Hyperactive MP Girlfriends in Germany. To which the Hapless Captain (John Larroquette) then finds out and leads the Squad of fresh recruits on a retrieval Mission for this vehicle. To which they then take a ""wrong turn"" en-route and end up in Soviet Held Czechoslovakia, where they are captured. (Like we didn't see that coming...) Thus begins a rescue attempt by Ramis and Murray + Birds in hand, to which is where a big fight, loads of shooting from the hip and blowing tanks up. With them coming back as National Heroes, humiliating the Russians by calling them ""pussies,"" etc etc. The end. Thats right. No Courts Martial, nothing. They only just stole a prototype Military vehicle, drove it into a Warsaw Pact country and almost caused an International incident which could've sparked WW3!

This film is honestly more fun that being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I know its meant to be a Comedy, it got all the right actors for it, but where in the hell is it? Have Channel 5 cuts those bits out? The only redeeming feature in this film is the repetitive use of naked women taking showers, and female Mud Wrestling. (like I said, Random) Not that it helps to divert from the fact that this is an utterly crap film, of course. This film should realistically be aimed at immature 9 year old's, sadly, we have to watch it instead. 1 star out of 10 - Total Tripe. My advice, do something a little more useful with your time. Like Castrating yourself...",Negative "Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.

Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.

Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.

The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?",Negative """Nada"" was the most inadequate follow-up to ""Les NOces Rouges"" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) ""Nada"" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work ""les Noces Rouges"" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces.""Nada"" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses (""la Belle Equipe"" ""Panique"") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.

With ""Nada"" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be ""Violette Nozières"" before he was again at the top of his game.",Negative "FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ?

You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere

I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films .",Positive """So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic… and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriend…he he…it'll be hilarious!."" Polite chuckling.

This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up ""Over Her Dead Body,"" presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.

For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, ""Over Her Dead Body"" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles?

I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do.",Negative "I wasn't alive in the 60's, so I can't guarantee that this movie was a completely accurate representation of the period, but it is certainly a moving and fulfilling experience. There are some excellent performances, most notably by Josh Hamilton (of With Honors), Jerry O'Connell (Sliders), who play brothers divided by the war. Bill Smitrovich, a character actor who has been long ignored by many, gives a heart-filled performance as their strict father, who is forced to question his own beliefs and values as one of his sons makes him proud by going to Vietnam but returns empty inside, while the other is exactly the opposite. All in all, this is a powerful and heartwarming film that I hope everyone gets a chance to experience.",Positive "This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, ""before God, there was music"" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, ""Before time, there was Tia Maria""? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds ""You don't know that"".

In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective.",Negative No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad.

,Negative "I think its time for Seagal to go quietly into the night. What I have just seen makes all his direct to video releases in the last few years look like his early 90's smash hits in comparison.

A secret bio lab is making a new kind of drug that jacks up a human's adrenaline system to the point where they become psychopathic killers or something. Somehow Seagal is supposed to stop the infection or its the end of the world...or something. Seagal also went through hit squads like jellybeans, every time I look up he was commanding a new face so it kinda got hard to follow character development as well I know Steven's athsma prevent him from yelling at the top of his lungs but even so why is he constantly being dubbed by people who sound nothing like him? Usually the films plot and action sequences can save it from being a total waste of time but this was not even close. Like I said, it was more of a horror movie with a lot of blood and shank stabbing rather than straight up fighting. The problem was it wasn't really scary and Seagal looked completely out of place because the infected people were supposed to have speed of light movement yet the 40 year old 280 lb Seagal killed them all singlehandedly? I guess the lone highlight of the movie was the first 20 minutes where the new recruits ask Seagal to come to the strip club with them.

2 out of 10",Negative "i went to see this movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided.

Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie.",Positive "It could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.

It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love ""The Fallen Idol"" but I am not among them. I think I saw ""Brighton Rock"" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.

And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.

I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered.",Positive "In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says ""The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation."" This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no ""secret"" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight ""honeycomb"" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).",Negative "After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to ""make-believe"" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!",Negative "If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a ""Moving Picture"" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.

Now I like B movies. I just watched ""The Giant Gila Monster"" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie.

Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.",Negative "After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste.",Negative "Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made

The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast

The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before

I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it.

This movie sucks

Do not watch it,

Watch paint dry instead",Negative "As a kid I remember being nine or ten and loving this movie. It was the all round Bollywood action/comedy movie. It is a imitation of Bad Boys obviously! The whole swapping identities but the arrival of two other twins throws everything out of the window and then the arrival of colourful villains who dance and sing! The action scenes in the film aren't revolutionary but still amazing scenes. The film is genuinely very funny and was the great comeback Amitabh Bachan needed. Govinda is a gem like always and this is probably his best work to date, he shines as the side kick nd delivers the best comedy scenes available in Indian cinema.

The songs....The songs are both funny and catchy..............proving laughs when you least expect it...Amitabh Bachan surprisingly is very funny and will make you laugh as 'Bade Miah'....his accent...body language..... Brilliant...

'Assi chutki naab re daal' is the best song..............Hilarious.",Positive "Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.

The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?",Positive "Shintarô Katsu, who played the blind swordsman ""Zatoichi"" in a total of 27 movies, ends the Hanzo trilogy with this excellent film in which he gets to make love to a ghost, Mako Midori (Blind Beast).

The big stick, used often in the pursuit of justice, is retired forever.

Katsu was his usual impudent self as he pursued those who would steal from the treasury to lend at usurious amounts to those who could not afford to pay.

The usual amazing swordplay and skill of the big guy was present, along with the blood.

I'm going to miss him.",Positive "If you find yourself in need of an escape, something that will hold your attention for two hours and allow you to be lost in another world, Domino will satisfy that need. This is entertainment, after all! The plot keeps your brain in motion - one of those movies (like Usual Suspects) where you want to see it a second time to figure it all out. I wondered about Domino Harvey herself, how her life became of interest to Hollywood. As for the acting, lots of celebrity appearances not shown in the trailers. And any actor that makes me forget who they are has done their job well. Not once did I think of Kiera in a soccer uniform or pirate costume. And granted, Mickey Rourke plays Mickey Rourke well and often, but here, despite the violence, he shows signs of being capable of caring for other people.",Positive "Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.

Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.

With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended.",Positive "This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals.",Negative "Peter Weir's first international success, THE LAST WAVE is a mainly effective chiller with a fascinating back story based on Aboriginal myth. Richard Chamberlain gives a good performance as a defense lawyer whose life becomes increasingly unmoored from reality as he delves deeper into a murder case involving Aboriginal tribal rivalries. David Gulpilil plays one of the suspects, who does his best to guide Chamberlin thru the realm of 'Dreamtime', an alternate reality/timeline central to native Australian history and tribal custom. Heavy on atmosphere, deliberately ambiguous in plotting, the film builds to an unsettling finale which is somewhat diminished by poor effects, probably due to budgetary limitations. Nevertheless an intriguing film whose overall impression of mystery and dread lurking just below the surface of what we perceive as 'reality' will stay with you.",Positive "Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.

Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.",Negative "SPOILERS. Like other posters, I felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. I would have liked to have seen the crew adjusting to life back on earth after their return. I suppose the writers anticipated this problem by ""front loading"" some Voyager on earth sequences at the beginning of the episode. (Of course, that time line has been eradicated, so it's all moot.) I did like how Admiral Janeway died for the Voyager crew. As fans, we get to have our cake and eat it to, by having Janeway both make the ultimate sacrifice and live on. I admit that the scenes of Janeway and her older self having conversations was bizarre and so easily could have crossed the line into camp. Fortunately, Mulgrew(s) pulled it off.",Positive "You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:

1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!

Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.

Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them -

Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.

And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since ""PLAN 9"" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.

And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.

Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?

Wayno

",Negative "Kris Kristofferson, at his drugged-out peak in the mid-70s, finds himself barely able to squeeze on to the screen alongside La Streisand's humongous ego and discount-store feminism.

None of the characters are really likable; I was _so_ glad when Kristofferson's Ferrari went over that hill and crashed.

If you want to see a good movie about rock and roll stardom, try _The Buddy Holly Story_ (made only about a year and a half after this dreck).",Negative "What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.

The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.

The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.",Negative "Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.

What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?",Negative "This film is moving without being sentimental - meaningful without being pretentious. It tells a simple story of a family in danger of falling apart as the encroachments of technology and an advancing society make the family-run business increasingly untenable.

The acting is wonderful - though none of us in the west are likely to have heard of these actors, we should have long ago - they play their characters with honesty and reverence - these are flawed characters, each with major weaknesses, but with such utter humanity and kindness that it's impossible not to become engaged in the story.

We need more films like this - we need more western filmmakers creating films such as this.",Positive "This movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, ""Why is your dick over there, Chuck?"" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.

Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.

Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.

Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.

If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent ""Darkness Falls"". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood.",Negative Gadar is a really dumb movie because it tells a fake story.It's too unrealistic and is a typical sunny deol movie that is aimed to bash Pakistan.The movie's aim is to misguide the viewers so they can think that Pakistan and it's government is bad but trying to hide their own flaws won't work.And all the songs and music of the movie are all bad.Most likely the Sikhs will love th movie cause they are being misguided.The movie sucks and sucks with power. I think only Amisha Patel was good in the movie. If i can give 0 out of 10 I would but the lowest is 1.Please save 3 hours of your life and do not watch this stupid boring movie .Disaster.,Negative "As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.",Positive "The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.

The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.

This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.

The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.

Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.

A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.",Negative "As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me.",Positive "When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his ""character"" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.

The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years – his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word ""procrastinate""?)

But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a ""comedy"" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks ""would you like to make love to me?"" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.

I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called ""The Bear Trap"".

In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie.",Negative "THE FOURTH MAN (Paul Verhoeven - Netherlands 1983).

A film based on a novella by Gerard Reve, that works best as a thriller. That's quite surprising, considering Reve roughly needs a hundred pages for just a minor plot twist and tension is the last thing on my mind when reading his work.

""The Fourth Man"" is top-heavy on symbolism. Paul Verhoeven is generally extremely preoccupied with proving something to mostly hostile critics and I'm never sure what it is exactly he is trying to prove. He usually underestimates his audience and tells his story in such an unsubtle way, he quickly diverges from the original idea or storyline, and almost seems to forget what needs to be seen on screen and what needs to be left out. In ""The Fourth Man"" he is not as explicit on detailing the plot as he is with sex and nudity (of which there's plenty) but, as in most of his films, he seems afraid the audience wouldn't get it and hammers home the story with overt symbolism mixed with some supposedly shocking nudity and graphic sex scenes. There's hardly a scene without sex or full-frontal nudity, most of it so maddeningly gratuitous and in your face, it undermines an otherwise good story.

Nevertheless, when you can cope with Verhoeven's pretty obvious satiric approach, it's quite an entertaining thriller at times with some intriguing plot twists and good performances all round, Thom Hoffman and Jeroen Krabbé in particular.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10",Positive "The obvious parallels between Walt Disney's charming fantasy Bedknobs and Broomsticks and C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia are pretty apparent. There are more coincidences here than comparing Bedknobs and Broomsticks than with Mary Poppins even though a lot of the same creative talent went into the two Disney films.

Like The Chronicles of Narnia it involves some English children leaving London during the blitz and coming to live in the country. And those kids have to deal with a world of magic. But unlike C.S. Lewis the Rawlins kids have the magic invade their world and help defeat the people making a mess of it in the here and now. No retreating to a fantasy kingdom like the Pevensie kids.

No heavy duty philosophy here from Walt Disney except maybe it's not a good thing to mess with witches even apprentice ones like Angela Lansbury who learn their magic from a charlatan like David Tomlinson. Ms. Lansbury didn't get to be one of the most bankable of performers for nothing. She carries her own brand of magic that even the special effects boys at Disney couldn't top. And they won an Oscar for the Magic Kingdom in that department for this film.

Two performers made their farewell to films in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Tessie O'Shea played her last role in this film, she graced many a film in the United Kingdom as one of their best loved music hall performers. And that grand character actor Reginald Owen as the retired general who leads the Old Home Guard in war and in song bids adieu to film audiences around the world.

The team of Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman who wrote the score for Mary Poppins wrote a good and serviceable one here. The Age Of Not Believing was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to the Theme from Shaft. Personally though I do like David Tomlinson's tribute to that most colorful of London streets, Portabello Road.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fine fantasy film that still holds up well after almost 40 years. Imagine what it would be like with computer generated graphics.",Positive "I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.

I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.

I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.

This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.

I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!",Negative "PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.

*1/2 out of **** I give it.",Negative "I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.

Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are ""a decadent, Western phenomenon"". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.

CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV",Positive "I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.

Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.

From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.

For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.

From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.

A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.

However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.

It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.

I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers!",Negative "This movie tries hard, but completely lacks the fun of the 1960s TV series, that I am sure people do remember with fondness. Although I am 17, I watched some of the series on YouTube a long time ago and it was enjoyable and fun. Sadly, this movie does little justice to the series.

The special effects are rather substandard, and this wasn't helped by the flat camera-work. The script also was dull and lacked any sense of wonder and humour. Other films with under-par scripting are Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, Thomas and the Magic Railroad and Addams Family Reunion.

Now I will say I liked the idea of the story, but unfortunately it was badly executed and ran out of steam far too early, and I am honestly not sure for this reason this is something for the family to enjoy. And I was annoyed by the talking suit, despite spirited voice work from Wayne Knight.

But the thing that angered me most about this movie was that it wasted the talents of Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Daniels and Daryl Hannah, all very talented actors. Jeff Daniels has pulled off some good performances before, but he didn't seem to have a clue what he was supposed to be doing, and Elizabeth Hurley's character sadly came across as useless. Daryl Hannah is a lovely actress and generally ignored, and I liked the idea of her being the love interest, but sadly you see very little of her,(not to mention the Monster attack is likely to scare children than enthrall them) likewise with Wallace Shawn as some kind of government operative. Christopher Lloyd acquits himself better, and as an actor I like Lloyd a lot(he was in two of my favourite films Clue and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I am fond of Back To The Future) but he was given little to work with, and had a tendency to overact quite wildly.

Overall, as much I wanted to like this movie, I was left unimpressed. Instead of being fun, it came across as pointless, and that is a shame because it had a lot of potential, with some talented actors and a good idea, but wasted with poor execution. 1/10 Bethany Cox",Negative "I must say, I thought I had seen it all. I am an extremely jaded movie buff. This movie didn't shock me, by any means. I'm way past that point. But it did take me to certain emotional places I didn't know I could go to. I had no idea I could ever find (ick) the idea of beastiality erotic. Never never never. Ever. Ever. But there you go. He did it. I have to give the director credit. He pulled it off.

For the first 40 minutes this movie is a TOTAL bore. We start off with some very explicit footage of two horses having sex. After five minutes of this I started wondering if buying this movie wasn't a mistake. Then an old guy in a wheelchair talks to some other old guy about two people getting married. Then some nervous guy shaves. Then we see (briefly) a hot chick getting it on with a butler (but this is very brief). At this point I was cursing the movie out loud while trying to stay awake. In fact, I fell asleep at about the 40 minute mark and forced myself to finish it the next night.

We finally get the good stuff when a girl (who knows who she is, or who anyone is in this movie) has a dream about a Victorian-era gal being ravaged by a beast-thing in the forest. The scene goes on for quite some time and is really the meat (heh-heh) of the whole deal. It's beautifully shot, superbly edited, and does deliver the goods. They do try to wrap up the plot at the end and it sort of makes sense but sort of doesn't either. Oh well. I would definitely recommend this film. The first 40 minutes made me want to shoot myself (and my TV) but the last 50 minutes totally redeems it.",Positive "How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a long—lost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.

Without giving away too much—Chandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.

Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.

As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnapped—in a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imagery—and are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals.

Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?

Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosi—yet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.

This serial is unjustly bashed.",Positive "i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.

the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.

(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).

anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.

its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.

please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.

i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/",Negative "OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.

It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.

It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.

I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.

My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.",Negative "Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening.",Positive "We fans of Ed Wood tend to be an obsessive bunch in the first place, but this movie in particular has driven me to a level of fan-dom that I have never before approached! One of the most intense thrills of non-mainstream movie adulation - at least as far as I am concerned - is the pleasure of unearthing the obscure. I remember how, as a teenager, I longed to see Eddie's ""Revenge of the Dead"" (a.k.a. ""Night of the Ghouls""), which at that time had been vaulted for a couple of decades. Likewise such arcane masterpieces of low budget filmmaking as Doris Wishman's ""A Night to Dismember"" or half the works of Jesus Franco! However, recent years have seen video and DVD rendering these once unfindable treasures almost TOO accessible - even for those of us on the 'wrong' (!) side of the Atlantic....

And then, behold, there was ""I Woke Up Early the Day I Died"" - a movie that SHOULD have been so 'big', yet which disappeared into the ether even before Fangoria printed the first fairly lengthy article on it that first whetted my appetite. The 1990s NEEDED a hard-to-find movie though which would REALLY be worth hunting out: and this, to be sure is it.... I don't especially wish to add too much of a commentary on all those marvellous aspects of the film - its classy-yet-kitsch cast, its haunting yet often hallucinogenic visuals, its wondrous moments of ""pure cinema"" (in the sense of the 1920s French cineastes) and surrealism, or even its resoundingly memorable soundtrack - since this has all been described most eloquently by other users here.

What I DO wish to mention, briefly, is the pleasure that I have received also from hunting down certain obscure artefacts relating to this almost-lost-to-us-but-thankfully-not-quite movie! I think the German video, which I picked up while in Cologne on a cold crisp winter's day, is fairly well-known to Ed Wood's followers now. It is also quite common knowledge that a promotional poster for the film was released. However, there is thankfully more to be found!!! Firstly, there are a number of reviews available from the film's German THEATRICAL release - I have used several of these in my translation classes in an attempt to ""Woodify"" my students..... some of these reviews are positive eulogies to the film's artistry and entertainment value - and most interesting of all is that most critics placed it squarely within both the American trash AND European arthouse traditions. Secondly, there is the score by Larry Groupe', which can be acquired from the man himself - many of the tracks exert a truly emotional pull on the listener, particularly if you are contemplating the film's currently ""vaulted"" status and growing a little melancholy at the same time. Finally - for now - I wish to mention the promo SOUNDTRACK that Cinequanon put out in extremely limited numbers. BEG, BORROW, STEAL, KILL or do whatever it takes if you get the chance to acquire one of these!!!!!! It features 14 tracks from the film, including Eartha Kitt's ballad, the late Darcy Clay's ""Jesus I Was Evil"" (two versions of which are also available on CD from New Zealand, although that is another story again!), the cool radio music to which Christina Ricci dances, and also those amazing techno drops by Minty and ZHV (the latter being Billy Z's very own techno band).....

Become obsessed - let Ed Wood rule your life.",Positive "A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).

He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.

Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.

Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.

About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.

I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.",Negative "I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.

First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.

The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.

And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.

I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate it.",Negative "This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.",Positive "A couple of days after writing about how garbage like MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH receive money while Ange , Duncan and Theo are totally ignored I had to sit through yet another British movie * that had me scratching my head as to why it received a single penny . Some people may claim that because DEAD BABIES is based upon a highly regarded novel it has an in built market but both THIS FILTHY EARTH and MAD COWS were also adapted from novels and they were an ordeal to sit through as well

I had read the synopsis of the plot where a bunch of high class wasters go to a remote mansion where they're stalked by an internet cult but to be honest this isn't really how the story unravels and anyone expecting Friday THE 13TH meets THE SHINING is going to be bitterly disappointed since 90-95% of the running time is taken up with said characters taking drugs and discussing sex . And what hateful characters they are too . Not one of them is likable in any way and within minutes you'll be getting nostalgic for Stalin , Mao and Pol Pot hoping that next time someone embarks on communist democide they'll be successful in creating an egalitarian utopia . Anything that will signal the end of such decadent bourgeois meaningless that the hateful characters in this movie embark upon can only be welcomed

Not content with giving us a movie where the plot is meandering and where the audience fail to connect with the characters the director continues to spoil things further by getting all clever and arty . No doubt that is to impress us so we will fall upon our knees and cry "" Oh my god , what a wonderful director the way he bamboozles us with his highly artistic technique and only a worthless pleb will fail to appreciate what a god given talent this man is "" . I'm sure the vast majority of people either screamed "" How come my projects got turned down while crap like this didn't ? "" or "" WTF was the last half hour of this piece of crap all about ? "" You might defend the movie by saying the original source novel was unfilmable and this makes the film unwatchable . I will agree that this movie is unwatchable

* I know the IMDb classes this as an American movie but the style and faults with DEAD BABIES is uniquely British . Americans might think they've got things tough with Bush but we've got Tony Blair , not to mention DEAD BABIES , MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH . No wonder everyone is ashamed to be British in the 21st century",Negative "I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.",Negative "It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.

The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.

The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.

If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.",Negative "I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the ""Two of Us"" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what ""might have been."" Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances.",Positive "This show has a few clichés and a few over the top, Dawson's Creek-like moments (a 16-year-old talking about way back when life made sense?), but overall it seems like a decent show. Most of the characters seem very real, and the story seemed to move along well in the pilot - ending with a good lesson in the end. I just hope every episode doesn't turn out to be life-altering like the first, that would just be too much drama for this vehicle. Jeremy Sumpter does an excellent job as a teenager with a passion for baseball, I believe a lot of us could relate to his awe and sometimes tunnel vision for the team that he always wanted to a part of.",Positive "I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well.",Positive "To my surprise, I really enjoyed Disney's latest animation installment. The Film had its lows, but overall I felt the story was strong and the characters were easy to relate to. It was also pleasant to see an Animated Disney film that was not a musical. I was about pushed to the limits with Tarzan. Thankfully they gave the music thing a rest. Another nice feature about the film is that the comedy was not completely dumbed down (a la Hercules), rather subtle so it still made the kids laugh while not make the adults feel giddy or just plain stupid.

One disappointment was the animation. With all the great animated films happening outside Disney studios, you would think they would move along and catch up a little. There is something to say about tradition, but imagine the possibilities with the story of Atlantis! Overall the film was entertaining, and definitely worth a trip to the multiplex.

",Positive "I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.

Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.

Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.

Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of ""The Fellowship of the Rings"" and part of ""The Two Towers"" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.

Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.

This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.",Negative "Oh... my... god... this is without a doubt the absolute cheesiest movie I have ever seen. The acting is bad, the story is weak, the characters are weaker, and the whole film just doesn't make sense. Couple this with mediocre directing, really strange scenes (such as the one where the kid reaches over the ravine and mysteriously falls in), and thoroughly abysmal dialog (""Look!"" ""Musta peed his pants!""), and you get one complete failure. Not to mention the fact that the only thing Mr. Atlas looks like he could defeat is a case of chocolate bars. But this is part of the movie's charm. Sit down and watch it with a few of your friends for a good laugh.

I love this movie, because it's just SO BAD!",Negative "I loved this movie. It is a definite inspirational movie. It fills you with pride. This movie is worth the rental or worth buying. It should be in everyones home. Best movie I have seen in a long time. It will make you mad because everyone is so mean to Carl Brashear, but in the end it gets better. It is a story of romance, drama, action, and plenty of funny lines to keep you tuned in. I love a lot of the quotes. I use them all the time. They help keep me on task of what I want to do. It shows that anyone can achieve their dreams, all they have to do is work for it. It is a long movie, but every time I watch it, I never notice that it is as long as it is. I get so engrossed in it, that it goes so quick. I love this movie. I watch it whenever I can.",Positive If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!,Positive "Who was George C. Scott? George C. Scott was a renowned actor. Practically any movie that he's been in is the better off for it. Now ol' George had absolutely NOTHING to do with this movie..., but he once said something that describes said movie to a T.

I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that Great Writing can Save Bad Acting, But Great Acting CanNOT save Bad Writing. Never has this little observation been truer than in ""The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy: For Love or Mummy"".

The casting of the two leads was absolutely perfect. Bronson Pinchot (Laurel) and Gailard Sartain (Hardy) not only look the parts, but they do an exceptionally good job at mimicking the real deal (mannerisms and all). This movie should stand as a lasting testament to their talents. That said, this movie falls flat on its face when it comes to (you guessed it) WRITING.

Aside from the opening dialogue between Pinchot and Sartain (which was very ""in character"") and a brief gag involving a taxi, this movie is an absolute chore to sit through.

PROBLEM # 1: Too much time and effort went into the plot.

I don't want to know why the mummy wants to kidnap the pretty British lady. What I WANT is to see Stan and Ollie (or at least, their stand-ins). Way too much screen time was devoted to explaining the plot or to the not-very-funny secondary characters that said plot revolved around.

However, even if this movie had been all jokes, that would still leave us with...

...PROBLEM # 2: Most of the jokes are what I would call ""watered-down"" slapstick.

What do I mean by ""watered down""?

In slapstick, a character gets hurt in an exaggerated way for comedic effect (ala Looney Tunes, 3 Stooges...,or how about Laurel & Hardy?).

In ""watered-down"" slapstick (as I define it), a character gets mildly hurt or inconvenienced, and the filmmakers play that up for comedic effect.

Maybe an illustration would help:

In Looney Tunes, Daffy Duck gets shot by Elmer Fudd. His bill falls off and he puts it back on. That is classic slapstick.

In this ""gem"", Ollie accidentally bumps into some people. They turn around, tell him to be careful, and continue on their merry way. That's not slapstick. That's not even funny. That's just...boring...and this movie is full of these kinds of jokes. It's as though they're this movie's bread and butter. The writers and directors just take these dull moments and act like they're supposed to be funny. Granted, the example I just gave is the most extreme case, but I can only cut it so much slack.

Long story short: The film just doesn't work because the script fails to capitalize on Pinchot's and Sartain's abilities to impersonate Stan and Ollie. Instead, the script capitalizes on plot exposition and lame jokes. Watching this movie is basically watching two excellent impersonators who were given no real material to work with.

Not a good movie, but an incredible sleeping aid.

I say give this one a miss and stick with the real deal (just so long as you steer clear of ""Atoll K"" and ""Be Big"").",Negative "Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him ""selfish jerk"". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks – Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.

A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of ""While She Was Out"" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""Enquanto Ela Está Fora"" (""While She Was Out"")",Negative "This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.",Positive "I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.

Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie.",Negative "I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than ""Anaconda."" None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable ""movie"" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.",Negative "I have no idea how IMDb sorts reviews but I do know that, as happens often on Amazon.com, there are a striking number of very negative reviews for this movie which repeat the same, somewhat obscure talking points, almost verbatim. A campaign? Only IMDb knows.

As for this movie: it's fine. It's a funny, cute and very straightforward movie.

It's been over a decade since I worked in Brooklyn, lived in Queens and visited relatives in the South Bronx. But I found nothing inauthentic or exploitative about these kids. Is the grandmother a bizarre character? Yup. Do the dialogue and plot acknowledge this? Yes, thankfully, they do. Are other movies set in the LES and featuring Dominican / Puerto Rican kids possible? You betcha. Does that make this movie a crime — as some of the (to my eyes, astroturf) comments would suggest? Hardly. Let a thousand plastic flowers bloom.

This is better than any episode of Degrassi JR. High or Degrassi High. Scoff at the comparison but _we've never had that_ and I'm touched, to the core, by this movie's humility of purpose and tender spirit.

That said, I'd love to know the backstory behind all this backbiting! :-D",Positive "I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is ""worst movie ever"". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the ""worst"" ever? A video not ""movie"" like ""zombiez"" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like ""Garden State"", ""Wedding Crashers"" and ""I heart huckabees"" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked ""stupid"" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'!",Positive "Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark.

Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.

That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.",Negative "Well this movie actually made me feel so strongly that I signed up for an IMDb account just to warn people. It is patently AWFUL!! NOTHING makes sense in this movie. There is way too many subplots for a start. Josh Hartnett's character is an aspiring actor and yoga instructor as well as a cop who seems to be living way beyond his means and only teaches yoga to hot girls (Some of whom wait naked in his jacuzzi for when he comes back from work). Add to that the fact that his dad was killed by a crooked cop who just so happens to be in on the current crime being investigated by the hapless duo. Harrison Ford's character is trying to sell real estate on the side and is sleeping with the Internal Affairs investigator's ex-wife who happens to run a psychic radio show which Ford's character calls from time to time. NONSENSE!!

I can't remember the characters names (that's how forgettable this is) so I'll refer to them as Ford and Hartnett.

Then there's the dialogue which is brutal. I mean cringe-inducing stuff here. Throw in every cliché in the book (having a heart-to-heart in a dark bar during the day over a drink where the bartender knows his name; the duo being investigated by internal affairs (why??); hartnett confronting his dad's killer) and you've got one hell of a mess.

As I mentioned the plot is preposterous and continuity is non-existent: 1) When Ford's car is being repossessed, how the hell did the repo guys know where it would be parked? Were they following him?? 2) When Hartnett goes to the morgue and it just so happens that the only clue from the crime scene (an earring) is replicated on of the charred bodies there (that was lucky!) 3) When the two are arrested and taken in for questioning - Ford keeps answering his phone and Hartnett ""centers himself"" with a yoga pose on the table. Instead of taking the phone from Ford the IA guy waits for it to ring each time and then tries to grab it off the table before Ford does. Meanwhile the female IA officer in with Hartnett is rubbing herself all over him. Then, inexplicably, the two are released without answering any questions. 4) During the car chase Hartnett's car is crashing and smashing its way around Hollywood but then suddenly the car is perfect again. Not a scratch! 5) When Ford chases the bad guy into the building and he gets in the elevator how the hell does he know which floor the bad guy got off at?? 6) When the two are chasing the bad guy around in hartnett's car, Ford is trying to close a real estate deal. Come on! 7) The bad guy is the most unconvincing record exec ever. His motivation for killing an aspiring group of rappers on his label? They might leave his label and it's a warning to keep his other groups loyal. But hang on, how is he ever going to sign anyone new with that business plan?? 8) Why is the IA guy who is investigating Ford arrested in the end? There is no explication!! 9) And Hartnett gets to use his ""acting"" to capture the bad guy in the end.

I could go on, I really could. Anyone who is looking deeper into this movie than a straight up action comedy needs their head examined because that's all it is. There's nothing else to it! It's not supposed to be satirical or ironic. It's just crap.",Negative "I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................",Negative "This was the best movie I've ever seen about Bulimia. It hit the exact spot of what Bulimia is really about and how it's not always about being skinny and dieting. It showed how people with Bulimia tend to think about things such as their outlook on life, friends and themselves. The best line and the part that really shows what the problem with Bulimia is, is when Beth says,""It's not about you!"" That line really showed a lot about the character and others with the same problem. It showed that people with Bulimia don't have this problem because of anything that has to do with anyone else. It has to do with them and them only. It shows that it's time to talk about the person with the problem instead of putting the attention all on themselves. It showed that Beth needed to call out for attention at that moment and she needed her mom's attention at that time the most.",Positive "I can't agree with any of the comments. First time I saw the film on a UK TV channel, it was presented as an indie film and if you take the film under this angle I think it's an all different matter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and got hooked instantly. The plot may be as bad as a JS's show (ie there is no plot) but the acting is wicked, it's hilarious and it's all in all an incredible trash movie.

It says as much about America than a Bully or a Ken Park without the drama perspective but it gives a glimpse on the US society, and more precisely on what afternoon TV viewers in America (and I believe there are plenty of them !) are interested in. After all it's the neighbours we're talking about, don't we ?

100% fun !",Positive "A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour.",Positive "I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.",Negative "This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.

The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.",Negative "Three Russian aristocrats soak up the decadence of Monte Carlo, despite the fact they are down to their last franc. In order to support their lavish lifestyle, the three use the services of a counterfeiter, and use the notes at the casinos, hoping to exchange the bogus currency for a jackpot. Andrew Hughes, a US envoy, arrives at Monaco with his wife Helen, and the three decide to make pals with the visitors, hoping for financial assistance. One of the three Russians, Count Sergius Karamzin, plans to go further, with continuous advance towards Helen, while disappointing the Count's maid, who loves Sergius. Eventually, circumstances play their hand against the three aristocrats. Its obvious that Von Stroheim was trying to convey a message (with the foolishness of American women and the improper behaviors of the aristocrats), rather than tell a story, and the film really can bore modern audiences, like me, easily by doing that. Even the acting, which is great in later EvS like Greed and the Wedding March, is just run of the mill here. The film could have used improvements on various levels. Rating, 3.",Negative "Now i really liked this movie, it was so funny.Both Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are brilliant actors, i think after watching this film they should do lots more films together in the future.

Akshay Kumar gets himself into a bit of trouble by dating 3 women at the same time, but the way he handles in when one comes out of the door and then the other one was just so funny to watch, he acted really well int his film and i hope that he makes more great comedy's like this one in the future, John Abraham plays his best friend, he plays his role really well and he is so underrated i am glad that some of his amazing work has got noticed but he is a really Good actor. i just love John, Neha Dhupia has a small role in this film and plays it well.

The muse is really good i really recommend this movie to everyone.",Positive "Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he ""punishes"" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization.",Positive "First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them ""think"" through the entire thing, to which I say...""More power to you""!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!",Negative "Yet another remake of ""Fistful of Dollars"", Sergio Leone's remake of Kurosawa's ""Yojimbo"" (suggested by the novel 'Red Harvest').

This one is strictly a B-Movie; taken as that, it is rather enjoyable. the direction is crisp, the acting full of verve, the limitations of its 'direct-to-video' photography well-handled.

The weakness of the film is in the disastrous decision to marry the 'fistful'/'yojimbo' plot to a sub-plot from Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Although leone directed both 'Fistful' and 'West', his motivations behind the two films couldn't be anymore different. The 'Man With No Name' (Eastwood) is a borderline socio-path with a soft spot for broken families. Harmonica (Chaeles Bronson) is obsessed with his own broken family, and obsessed with revenge. These two characters would not have had much to do with each other. In order to bring them together, 'Gun Crazy' has to twist it's plot and complicate it until we lose track of which story we're actually following.

But this is a B-Movie after all, and filled with action and silliness; it's entertaining on that level, just don't expect anything more.",Positive "I've never laughed and giggled so much in my life! The first half kept me in stitches; the last half made me come completely unglued! I think I giggled for 15 minutes after the tape was over.

His timing and delivery for his stories is almost unequaled. And though he talks fast, you catch every joke. Which is probably why my ""laugh center"" was so overwhelmed; it took an extra 15 minutes to laugh at everything.

",Positive "I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing.",Positive "The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it.",Positive "Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so ""discovering"" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea.

Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?",Negative "Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.

The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.

Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.",Negative "Feeding the Masses is just one of many recent mediocre zombie movies to be after your hard-earned dollars. Suggestion? Keep your hard-earned dollars and let's just say that good old TheatreX took one for the team on this one. Guess what the plots about? Zombies taking over. This time though, for the sake of originality (?) this film takes place in Rhode Island, and to be honest I'm not sure I've ever seen a zombie flick based in Rhode Island. A TV station, controlled by the government, is supposedly keeping up ""normal"" broadcasts so that any remaining citizens won't think that there's any problem in the world, that is, those that never look or go outside, anyway. I will say though that a few of the commercials broadcast by this station were probably the most amusing part of this film. There is actually somewhat of a story to this but I'm not bothering with that because after a while you'll either not care or have fallen asleep. At any rate, this has plenty of terrible acting to throw on top off all the ""seen it all before"" stuff that gets trotted out before the camera. Trust me, you can find plenty of other things to do with your time than watch this. 3 out of 10.",Negative "This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.

Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.

I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.

*** out of ****",Positive "Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.",Negative "In addition to his ""Tarzan"" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular ""At the Earth's Core"", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled ""The Lad and the Lion"", brought to the screen as ""The Lion Man"" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually ""movie"" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.",Negative "It seems to me, as a recent film school graduate, that in these times of New Zealand film reaching new heights, the general public seems to think every New Zealand film made is great. Sione's Wedding proves this is dead wrong.

It's completely overrated and not funny, and far from the 'hilarious' film other users of IMDb have commented. The only really funny thing I found in this film was Derek the wannabe black guy, but other than that the jokes were recycled crap that we'd all heard before.

Being of half-Samoan decent, I wanted to see how the film was going to deal with Polynesian representation. It was a complete balls-up - I know it's a supposed comedy, but I didn't feel like the characters had anything new to say about Polynesian identity, even if it was in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I was most disappointed with the ending of the film and the resolution of the character's relationships - Mikaele was the player who only messed around with white women, comes to slightly turn his ways when the 'Dusky Maiden' comes to town, has an epiphany that maybe he should start looking for a stable relationship, then at the very last minute rejects it and accepts his position as a Polynesian Playboy for palagi women. I didn't understand why they did this.

All in all, it was very disappointing. My whole family went to see it expecting to have a good laugh, but ended up being really bitter about paying to see it at the cinema. The jokes are lame at best, the acting, particularly of Sefa's girlfriend, APPALLING, and honestly I would've been happy if I had got my hands on one of those pirated copies of the film to save myself the $15 ticket price.

I think the only good thing to come from the movie is that it's the second step (behind No. 2, of course, a far superior film to this one) in the birth of Polynesian cinema. I hope Pacific filmmakers in the future can learn from Sione's Wedding in how to NOT reflect Polynesia and have something more meaningful and sensible to say. Even if it is done in a comedic fashion.",Negative "Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.

* out of ****",Negative "A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance.",Negative "Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.

",Positive "Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.",Negative "Vivah is by no means a classic. However in the days of hardcore action, path-breaking special effects & complex plots (none of which Bollywood has mastered yet), its quite refreshing to see a simple film like Vivah. The story as we all know is a journey from a couple's first meeting to their eventual wedding after some coy moments and testing times. Nothing more, nothing less. The music isn't quite in the same league as MPK or HAHK but doesn't jar your senses either. Two songs stood out for me - Mujhe Haq Hai & Do Anjaane. While Milan abhi aadha & Hamaari shaadi were hummable. Shahid performs sincerely & shows a lot of potential. Its good to see him play something else but the ""cool dude"" he normally does. Amrita is very sweet and plays the role of a docile small-town girl to perfection. Alok Nath, Anupam Kher & Seema Biswas are terrific supports and the rest of the cast does a reasonable job. Suraj's direction is simple but effective. The movie's prime flaw is the slow pace which might test the patience of a lot of young viewers. But all in all a good, clean, decent family movie.",Positive "They should have called this movie: ""Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover"" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.

But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.

The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk.

In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.",Negative "I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.",Negative "Man on fire, is definitely one of the best drama/crime thrillers I have ever seen. Despite having a slow beginning the story is so amazingly complex and sensitive that it sticks together rather well. This is Denzel Washington's perfect role, in which he plays a body guard, called Creasy that is tormented by his past and is an alcoholic but never gives up on his duty to save his latest protégée, Pita. Dakota Fanning plays Pita, the very smart, enthusiastic little girl that loves so many things, and acts in a very convincing manner, she has a great future ahead of her. As I said the story is somewhat complicated, in order to fully understand it, you must watch it a couple of times.

This film is made in two parts, there's the first hour, where everyone is happy, nothing's wrong, everyone's just living their lives happily until the kidnapping of Pita occurs and where Creasy is almost killed. And then there's the second part, the rest of the film, where suddenly everything becomes complicated and somewhat gruesome and disturbing, when Creasy's recovered from his severe injury and starts chasing and killing the numerous criminals and ""La Hermamdad"" that were responsible for the planning and execution of the kidnapping of Pita.

Denzel Washington shows us his most up to date acting talents alongside many other talented actors which have a great future ahead of them. It is a real shame that this film hasn't been acknowledged enough, Washington really deserved another Oscar for his performance, and so did Fanning and the director. And even maybe the visual effects which were of very high quality.

If you like excellent, slightly deranged, suspenseful thrillers, this is the one to see. The most amazing thing is that elements of this film are actually based on a real story and real characters! 10/10",Positive "This is the second Animatrix short, and the first of them to be what one could call 'artistic'. It contains a lot of references, metaphors and symbols in the dense amount of material, especially with a running time of 9 minutes. I've heard some complaints that this is ""anti-human"", or tries to direct hate towards man, for their ""sins against machine"". I don't think that's true; it merely uses the robots to show us, that as humans, we aren't particularly accepting or open-minded towards anyone different from ourselves. I'd say it does a great job of that. The plot is good... it plays as a historical document, recounting what led to one of the main conflicts in the trilogy. Thus it holds clips from fictional news reports and the like. The voice acting is very good, if there is not a lot of it. The animation is nice, and the use of color, in spite of the usually realistic drawing style, makes it more open to do the smooth transitions and other surreal imagery. This has several bits of strong violence and disturbing visuals, as well as a little nudity. The disc holds a commentary, not in English but subtitled, and worth a listen/read. There is also a well-done and informative making of, based on both parts, so I would advise watching it after seeing the next one, as well. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys the Matrix universe, and/or science fiction in general. 8/10",Positive "Although I've long been a fan of Peter Weir, I hadn't watched any of his Australian movies until I watched The Last Wave. And it was a pleasant, unpredictable surprise.

Richard Chamberlain plays David, a lawyer invited to defend five aborigines charged with murdering another Aborigine. For David's peers it's a clear case of drunken disorder and they think they should plead guilty and serve a quick sentence. But David believes there's a mystery underneath the murder, linked to tribal rituals. As his investigation proceeds he learns not only things about his clients but about himself too.

To reveal more would be to spoil one of the strangest movies I've ever seen. I can only say that this movie goes in directions that no one will be expecting.

There are many elements that make this a fascinating movie: Chamberlain's acting, for instance; but also the performances by David Gulpilil, who plays a young aborigine who introduces David into tribal mysteries; and Nandjiwarra Amagula, who plays an old aborigine who's a spiritual guide. The relationships between these three characters make the heart of the movie.

But there's also the way Weir suggests the supernatural in the movie. David has dreams that warn him of the future. Australia is undergoing awful weather, with storms, hail falling and even a mysterious black rain that may be nothing more than pollution. But it's also related to the case David is defending. How it's related is one of the great revelations of the movie. Out of little events Weir manages to create an atmosphere of dread and oppression, suggesting future horrors without really showing anything.

Charles Wain's score is fantastic, especially the use of the didgeridoo. The photography is also quite good. Russell Boyd, Weir's longtime DP who won an Oscar in 2004 for Master and Commander, depicts a dark, creepy world full of mystery.

I also find it remarkable that for a movie centered on aborigines, it doesn't turn into an indictment against white culture or into a sappy celebration of the their traditions, like Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai. This movie is too clever to be that simplistic.

Sometimes it can be frustrating, and it may upset viewers who expect to finish a movie with everything making sense; but for those who don't mind some strangeness or ambiguity, The Last Wave is a great movie to watch.",Positive "An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.",Positive "Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.

Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.",Negative "The visuals and effects are up to par with the the original film and provide a lot of entertainment even if the storyline is essentially the same as the first two films. It also seems a lot more erotically charged than I remember the other films being. If you're a big fan of flying prehensile hair and tongues that can reach all the way down into your stomach, you'll like this film.",Positive "OK. There are people who should not see this movie.

1) Don't see it if you don't like satire or black humour. 2) Don't like it if you got offended by _The Watchmen_. 3) Don't see it if you want a serious superhero movie.

The rest of you, run, don't walk, to see _Mystery Men_. It's funny, it's quirky, it's a delightful sendup of every bad superhero cliche known to man. Occasional forays into junior-high humour don't ruin the tongue-in-cheek low-key fun of Jeanane Garafalo, Ben Stiller, and Hank Azaria, as well as a couple of amusing smaller parts by Geoffrey Rush and Greg Kinnear. (Good to see Louise Lasser getting work, too.) I laughed all the way through. Utterly unserious, somewhat weird, but -good-.",Positive "I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie ""1"" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out ""hello is anyone there?"" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!",Negative All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way.,Positive "A French novelist, disgusted by his wife's society friends, goes to North Africa for a respite. There he encounters a vivacious & talented Bedouin girl, living in poverty. To spite his wife, who is romancing a Maharajah, he decides to train & educate the girl, and present her to Parisian society as the PRINCESSE TAM TAM...

The marvelous Josephine Baker is perfectly cast in the title role in this very enjoyable French film. With her enormous eyes & infectious smile, she makes contact with the viewer's heartstrings immediately. Her over-sized personality & obvious joy of performing make her a pure pleasure to watch. Baker makes us care about what's happening to poor Alwina during her transformation & introduction to European mores.

Albert Préjean does very well as the Pygmalion to Baker's Galatea; also effective are Georges Peclet as a half-caste servant, and Jean Galland as the mysterious Maharajah.

The film is very handsome & well made, looking a little reminiscent of Busby Berkeley movies being produced at the same time in America - although unlike American films of this period, PRINCESSE TAM TAM hasn't any racism. It should be pointed out that there was no Hays Office or Production Code in France. Some of the dialogue & action is rather provocative, but it must be admitted that Baker singing & dancing to 'Under The African Sky,' as well as her culminating performance in the Parisian nightclub, are two of the cinema's more memorable moments.

Actual location filming in Tunisia greatly enhances the film.

Josephine Baker was born in St. Louis in 1906, into a very poor family. Her talent & driving ambition, however, soon pushed her into moving East and she was briefly a cast member of the Ziegfeld Follies. Realizing that America in the mid-1920's held great limitations for a gifted Black woman, she managed to get herself to Paris, where she eventually joined the Foliés-Bergeres & Le Negre Revue. The French adored her and she became a huge celebrity. A short return to America in 1935 showed Baker that things had not changed for African-Americans. She returned to France, became a French citizen & worked for the Resistance during the early days of the War. Baker relocated to Morocco for the duration and entertained Allied troops stationed there.

After the War, Baker's fortunes began to slide and she faced many financial & personal difficulties. For a while, she was even banned from returning to the United States. Finally, Baker accepted an offer from Princess Grace of Monaco to reside in the Principality. Josephine Baker was on the verge of a comeback when she died of a stroke in 1975, at the age of 68.

Having appeared in only two decent films - ZOUZOU & PRINCESSE TAM TAM - Baker is in danger of becoming obscure. But she deserves her place alongside Chevalier, Dietrich & Robeson, as one of her generation's truly legendary performers.",Positive "This collection really sucks!

I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).

And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so ""cool"" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!

This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.

Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!

Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!",Negative "Now let me tell you about this movie, this movie is MY FAVORITE MOVIE!!! This movie has excellent combat fighting. This movie does sound like a silly story line about how Jet Li plays a super hero, like Spider-Man, or etc. But once you've seen this movie, you would probably want to see it again and again. I rate this movie 10/10.",Positive "Absolutely fantastic trash....this one has it all: nudity, good fight scenes, gore, action, explosions etc. It also stars the wonderful Belinda Mayne as Ingrid - not Olga as the other reviewer pointed out - although Olga turns into Ingrid later on in the film (you'll have to watch it to see what I mean).

I won't bother to go into the story as it's far too long winded and not very interesting. The relationship between Ingrid and her brother Bo (Robert Ginty) is interesting - watch the towel stealing scene to see what I mean.

The fight scenes were at once quite good and then spoilt by some really shoddy gore effects that looked like they were done by the team who did City of the Walking Dead (i.e. strange coloured blood gushing out of neck wounds).

I'd advise fans of low budget trash to check it out if they can track down a copy - its pretty rare though and I couldn't ever see anyone bothering to re-release it so it'll become all the rarer in a few years.

Anyway I'd recommend it solely for Belinda Mayne's great nude scenes! That lady's a fox!",Positive "It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious ""thing"" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.

The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the ""what the hell?"" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.

The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.

I'm in the latter group.",Positive "I just watched this on Turner Classic Movies Last night, for the first time ever seeing it, and I loved it. I like lots of the older films, especially because of the absence of all the filthy language, and excessive violence, nudity and sex in most of today's films. I also think they were made much better in many (but not all) cases. Jimmy Stewart is a special favorite of mine. I just thought this movie was a lot of fun to watch, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. If you feel the same way about the older films I don't think you can go wrong with this one. I believe ""You've Got Mail"" is a remake(even though slightly different and also a very enjoyable film.) of this film. For a relaxing evening with a movie you don't have to be ashamed of if your kids or anyone walks in on your viewing, get this,or catch it on one of the classic movie channels.",Positive "The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an ""NC-17"" rating).

*1/2 out of ****",Negative hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one,Positive "First, this is a review of the two disc set that came together with the ""Wonderland"" DVD rental.

The two movies included with the rental, ""Wonderland"" and the Johnny Wadd documentary, totally obliterate the myth created by ""Boogie Nights"". That myth being that the characters involved in the adult movie trade were considerably more than slimy lowlifes that would do anything for money, basically denying that they were anything other than detestable self-centered whores. This is amazingly similar to what the book ""Wiseguy"" and the movie ""Goodfellas"" did to ""The Godfather"" fable and most of the rest of the gangster romanticism lore.

Now, what irritated me most while watching these movies, and will probably irk anyone who saw and liked ""Boogie Nights"", is how foolish and gullible supposedly educated and sophisticated people can be. ""Dirk Diggler"" in ""Boogie Nights"" is without a doubt John Holmes, who unlike ""Dirk Diggler"", had no redeeming quality. Holmes was a criminal sociopath who abused anyone close to him, was totally consumed by his quest for self-gratification, and was without a doubt a key participant in the brutal murders on Wonderland Avenue in Los Angeles in 1981. The movie lays bare the big lie that ""Boogie Nights"" was, and reinforces the Linda Lovelace description of the cruel and pathetic business that is known as the adult film entertainment industry. This should be required viewing, both features on the ""Wonderland"" DVD, for anyone who had any positive opinions on the story in the movie ""Boogie Nights"".",Positive "Great fun. I went with 8 friends to a sneak preview viewing of this film. We came to see different one but after 10 minutes wondering what the heck we got ourselves into this time the jokes became funny and they stayed funny throughout the movie. In the first part you just keep asking yourself about this 'malinski' and 'bellini' stuff (there are many more examples of this lingo) and because they keep repeating the same jokes (with different twists) they get funnier and funnier. In search for this malinski all the main characters are introduced the first one even wackier than the next. Until half of the film was over we didn't even know the name of this movie because there were no opening credits and we went to this sneak viewing, but we sure had a good time. The house was loaded (appr. 250 people) and I think about half of them didn't like it and the other half loved the film. If you like weird comical movies with great dialogue you will love it. Apart from Clooney This movie deserves a lot better than the 5.6 IMDB rating it has at the time I write this, but when more ppl have seen it I am sure it will go up. 7.0 is reasonable I guess, I would give it an 8 out of 10. (10 out of 10 after a few beers)

",Positive this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.

seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened,Negative "Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.

At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.

Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself (""I'm going to bury that bastard,"" she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.

Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.

Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are.",Positive "Think of a no-budget version of China Syndrome being directed by a film student who idolizes John Woo and you'll get 'Power Play.' The idea was good, but the execution, acting, and dialog absolutely killed it, not to mention ridiculous amounts of violence and disaster sequences that was used to compensate for lack of substance and development of the more interesting parts of the movie.

This is the story of a reporter investigating the disappearance of three members of a guerrilla activist group who mysteriously went missing after they broke into the offices of a power plant that is suspected to be causing a frenzy of earthquake. The rather cavalier reporter, going up against what should've been a more ruthless bunch of company execs, is chased around town (along with anyone he speaks to) in order to ""clean"" whatever conclusive evidence might remain of the plant's faults.

Unfortunately, there is no real sense of emergency because the characters interact with much hesitancy, coupled with idiotic dialog and a lot of horrible acting. Not to mention, the viewer, who may only be attracted to the movie for it's action genre appeal, is forced to endure a mounting body count and ridiculous amounts of violent shoot em-ups plus earthquake disaster scenes. All of the focus was put in the wrong place to apologetically compensate for the lack of direction and more interesting sequence of events that should've propelled the story. It might've been much better had the filmmakers focused more on a thriller, and paid greater attention to developing the corruption aspects of this story. Creepy villains, a naive reporter, and those who attempt to alert the reporter of the wrong-doing afoot. It is formulaic, but at least it would've been entertaining.",Negative "This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant ""Bruck-buster"" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!",Positive "Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery",Negative "First an explanation on what makes a great movie for me. Excitement about not knowing what is coming next will make me enjoy a movie the first time I watch it (case en point: Twister). There are also other things that go into a great first viewing such as good humor (John Candy in Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors), good plot with good resolution (Madeline and Matilda), imaginative storytelling (all Star Wars episodes-George Lucas is THE MAN), and good music (again all Star Wars episodes, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music). What makes me watch a movie at least six times in the theatre and buy a DVD or VHS tape? Characters. With that said, I present Cindy Lou Who and The Grinch. Excellent performance Taylor Momsen and Jim Carrey. The rest of the cast was very good, particularly Jeffery Tambor, Bill Irwin, Molly Shannon, Christine Baranski, and Josh Ryan Evans. But, every single scene with Cindy and The Grinch-together is excellent and very funny and/or heartwarming. Cindy Lou is my favorite character in this movie and the most compelling reason why the movie is better than the cartoon. The Grinch has a strong plot, good conflicts, and a very good theme (I can't get started because I don't want to spoil it). Jim Carrey was very funny as The Grinch-particularly when he interacted with Cindy. And the music! Wow! Excellent music by James Horner. I loved his selection of instruments and the compositions. Very good job Jim Carrey-I didn't know you could sing. Taylor Momsen! Whoa! Your voice is reason enough to see the movie at least once. On your solo - Where Are You Christmas - is your voice really as high as it sounds? Sounds like an F#? That is an obscene range for a 7-year old (obscene meant in the best possible way). Great job. This is the best performance by a child I have ever heard in a movie(Taylor beat out the Von Trapp Children-no small feat!). And now to the actors. Jim Carrey was great, funny, and, surprisingly very sensitive (this really showed through in his scenes with Taylor Momsen). Taylor Momsen's unspoken expressions(one of the secrets to a good acting performance) are very strong-she really becomes Cindy Lou Who. And when she does dialogue she is even stronger.

******************************danger:spoiler alert********************* ***********************************************************************

Examples: expression when she first sees The Grinch. This is a classic quote (""You're the the the"" and then filled in with the Grinch line ""da da da THE GRINCH-after which she topples into the sorter and then is rescued by The Grinch). The ""Thanks for saving me"" quote and subsequent response by The Grinch was also very good.

My favorite part of the movie is when Cindy invites The Grinch to be Holiday Cheermeister. This scene is two excellent actors at their best interacting and expressing with each other. Little Taylor Momsen completely holds her own with Jim Carrey in this spot. I sincerely hope we see Taylor Momsen in many more films to come. All in all everything was great about this movie (except maybe the feet and noses).",Positive "This show is wonderful. It has some of the best writing I ever seen. It has brilliant directing by Dvid Trainer who also directed another smart television series called BOY MEETS WORLD.

This show is with out a dought one of the greatest. Like THREE'S COMPANY, ROSEANNE, and the famous COSBY SHOW this will be on television for a long time to come.

From it's perfectly crafted jokes to the great performances you would only dream of this is a wonderful show for people who lived in the seventies and the people who didn't. This show appeals to the young and the young at heart. A perfect show.",Positive "Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.

I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.

If you don't like America you won't like this film.",Negative "I wasn't expecting much, and, to be honest, I didn't like this film the first time around but watching it again and I realised that it's kinda cool. Sure, it's a one joke film but it's a funny gag.

Someone posted that it could be better written and it could be. I think this film had the potential to be a over-the-top My Cousin Vinny. But with a horror host instead of a lawyer. Sadly it's a wasted opportunity. With just a bit more writing it could be a classic. The kids are underused there's no reason why they should latch on to Elvira. Apart from the obvious reasons. It would have been great to see their relationship flourish. I know it's a comedy but it's little differences that separate the good films from the brilliant.

Elvira herself is always fun and engaging. Not to mention flirty. Every time she smiles you will too. It's hard to knock a film when the main character is so charming. And it really is her charm, don't let her looks fool you into thinking that she's some sort of tart. Well she is. But she's a nice one. The sort of person you'd let look after your kids. Wouldn't let her cook for them, though...

I'd recommend giving it a go.

Just don't expect too much.

She's more than just a great set of boobs. She's also an incredible pair of legs.",Positive "This movie was so bad! It was terrible! It was awful! I cannot stress it enough! The acting, directing, story, characters and everything about it was bad! It was so corny and clichéd. Don't be fooled by the cover, or the tag line ""The 'texas massacre' is nothing to laugh at."" Are you frogging' kidding me! It was ridiculous.

The first 2 minutes of the film is good until it gets to the main character Brendan, OK now turn it off. What I got from the film was, A bunch of ugly, annoying and immature people go to a cabin in the middle of the woods and a clown that sings nursery rhymes kills them in unoriginal and fake ways.

This movie was a waste of my time and money, and it would be a waste of your money and time too! I fast forward through most of the movie because it was so terrible, I just wanted to see how each bad actor died, and it STILL wasn't worth it! Just looking at the cover is a waste of time. This IS seriously THE worst movie EVER! Rating: doesn't deserve one.",Negative "I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film!",Positive "This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up.

Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three.

And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching.

I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman.",Negative "Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the ""femme fatale"", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.",Negative """That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?"" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that ""Tucker"" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of ""burning off"" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-",Negative """Bell Book and Candle"" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen it for a while, we decided to take another look at this comedy. Based on the James Van Druten's Broadway hit, which was a vehicle for Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer in the early fifties, the film was adapted for the screen by Daniel Taradash. The film was directed by Richard Quine, who turned the play into a delightful comedy.

Evidently, judging by some of the comments submitted by IMDb, the big issue seems to be the pairing of the two stars, who had collaborated on ""Vertigo"", released the same year. Movie audiences didn't think anything about the age difference when this film was released. In fact, most of the aging male stars of that period were always involved with much younger women.

The film set in Manhattan during Christmas is a delightful comedy that has enchanted viewers. Kim Novak was at the height of her beauty as it's clear the camera adored her no matter what was she playing. As the witch that becomes human, her Gillian is charming. James Stewart, who plays the publisher Shep' Henderson, is also seen at his best. Mr. Stewart was an excellent comedy actor who shows in here why he was at the top.

In supporting roles the wonderful Elsa Lanchester, playing Queenie, is a welcome addition to any movie, as she proves here. Jack Lemmon's Nicky Holroyd, the brother of Gillian, is also good. Ernie Kovacs is also seen as the writer Sidney Radlitch.

This is an excellent way to spend a winter night at home watching ""Bell Book and Candle"".",Positive """COSBY,"" in my opinion, is a must-see CBS hit! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which one is my favorite. Also, I really loved the theme song. If you ask me, even though I liked everyone, it would have been nice if Madeline Kahn hadn't passed away during the show's run. Since that happened, I've always wondered what the show would have been like. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen on TBS now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good",Positive "I'm starting to write this review during a break as I watch the movie. It's the first time I've tried doing that, but I'm having trouble getting through this one without occasional breaks. That's not because it's intense but because it's bad.

It's almost painfully tedious and unbelievable, especially when the preternaturally robust dying brother Ryan (Colm Feore) is on screen being tragic and bitchy, self-indulgent and self-pitying. This would have been a much better movie if they'd just left that character out of the story.

He adds nothing but mawkish, maudlin, very irritating melodrama. Maybe somebody decided that if they couldn't make Ryan believable they'd just make him obnoxious. The problem with that is: Who cares if a spoiled, whining, obnoxious jerk is dying? Not me.

The ONLY thing this character has going for him is the fact that he's dying, and sorry, but that's just not enough. Dying doesn't make anybody special. We're ALL dying, sooner or later. It doesn't give anybody the right to expect sympathy while acting like a jerk.

The other two characters, and the actors playing them (David Cubitt as Theo and Chandra West as Sarah), are very much more interesting, and their story, without Ryan's self-pitying interruptions, would have made a much better movie. But it's not over yet, and it's time to hit PLAY again. Maybe something great happens before the end....

Nope. Sorry. This rented turkey goes back tonight!",Negative "This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.

The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.

Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.

By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.

So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves.",Negative "Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.",Positive "The progression of the plot is enough to ""rope one in"" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort.",Negative "Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!",Positive "Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film.",Positive "So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.

I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.

Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero ""jump-in-your-seat"" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD.",Negative "Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.

The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.

The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.

The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.

From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.

The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.)",Negative "This recreation of the infamous 1959 murders in Kansas, based on the Capote book, is starkly filmed by Brooks and cinematographer Hall in black and white, giving it a documentary feel. There are good performances from Blake and Wilson as the killers and Forsythe as a cop who pursues them. The scenes leading up to the murders, filmed at the actual house where the crime occurred, with a soundtrack of whistling winds, are quite intense and chilling. Brooks directs with a lot of verve and uses several interesting transitions between scenes. The only complaint is that it is a bit overlong, with the denouement dragged out and somewhat preachy.",Positive "I saw ""Myra Breckinridge"" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't ""smart"" or ""trendy"", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.

Bluto",Negative "Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only ""exploitation "" aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!",Negative """Smokey And The Bandit"" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. ""Hooper"" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line (""If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back""). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through ""Hooper"". * from ****",Negative "I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!

The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end.

On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.

I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10.",Positive "I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...",Negative "This video was my first exposure to Eddie Izzard. We had several friends over one night and for some reason or another had channel-surfed to HBO during the course of the evening. Someone by the name of ""Eddie Izzard"" was on.I tried not to laugh too loudly at the first few jokes. I didn't want to be held ""responsible"" for the rest of the group's enjoyment of something that was obviously killing me. After holding in my laughs for more than was healthful, I let go--as did the others of us(we were not stoned, by the way, nor talking of insurance and pensions...). We were asphyxiated after that. The story lines, the plot, the bizarre yet ingenious connections throughout the sketches are nothing short of brilliance. I have since been addicted to every Eddie-Izzard-piece-of-comedy I can get my hands on. His work is sheer genius. His comedy appears effortless. He seems more like that hysterically funny friend hanging out at your house and rambling on about this or that...It's convulsively funny. He gives you the impression that the joke is between you .. and himself, the only true aficionados of humor, after all. If you are disappointed in this video, you have no sense of the penultimate in humor--or humour, as they say in the UK.",Positive "Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.

His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.

He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.

Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide.",Positive "Vampires Vs. Zombies starts with the breaking news that the unidentified disease that is spreading across America leaves the sufferer with homicidal & cannibalistic tendencies... Travis Fontaine (C.S. Munro) & his teenage daughter Jenna (Bonny Giroux) listen to the radio as they drive along the isolated backwoods roads to try & escape the disease when Travis runs over a guy who I assume is meant to be a zombie. Slightly further down the road he stops to help Julia (Brinke Stevens) & her teenage daughter Carmilla (Maratama Carlson) who are waving at the side of the road, at this point there is also a third teenage girl named Tessa (Melanie Crystal) sitting in the back of Julia's car bound & gagged. To me this situation would seem strange but Travis, like the trooper he is, takes it all in his stride & agrees to 'take' Carmilla off Julia's hands &, well I don't know actually. So, with a complete stranger, Travis drives off leaving Julia & Tessa. Carmilla seems like a nice girl but she turns out to be a Vampire & she likes to bite people & turn them into Vampires, oh & she's partial to a bit of lesbianism too. Travis, Carmilla & Jenna continue to travel while some guy who calls himself The General (Peter Ruginis) who appears to be some sort of Vampire killer & probably has something to do with it all but the film is such a mess it doesn't really matter & I really don't know how to carry on this plot outline as my head hurts just thinking about it...

Co-edited, co-executive produced, written & directed by the supremely untalented Vince D'Amato Vampires Vs. Zombies is one of the worst horror films ever & therefore one of the worst films ever period. The script by D'Amato was apparently based on a classic story entitled 'Carmilla' by Sheridan Le Fanu (he should sue) & is an absolute mess, the holes in the plot & logic are so big you could drive a tank through them! What is the disease that turns people into zombies? Why is Carmilla a Vampire? Who is Julia to her? Who the hell is The General? What does he want? Where are Travis & Jenna going? How can Travis run a man over & yet not have the slightest bit of human emotion over it? What's with the mental ward at the end? There are also some confusing & unnecessary dream sequences just to annoy the viewer even more. There are just so many things wrong with this film, the narrative doesn't make a blind bit of sense, the concept is terrible & never really explained properly plus it's incredibly boring. I have not one positive thing to say about Vampire Vs. Zombies, not one. Forget about any Vampires fighting Zombies because it just doesn't happen, tell me again why is this film called Vampires Vs. Zombies?

Director D'Amato has served up one of the most incompetent, rubbishy, badly made, poorly thought out & excruciatingly painful viewing experiences ever made. Vampires Vs. Zombies really has no redeeming qualities at all, there is not one single aspect that I can praise. The gore is really fake looking, there are some blood splats which look like red water, some really cheap staking effects & a half decent climax where the zombies feast on Carmilla's & Jenna's intestines, this fairly gory scene is probably the best part of the whole wretched film but it only lasts for a couple of minutes & in no way makes up for the other turgid 85.

The budget on Vampires Vs. Zombies must have been small, in fact did it even have a budget because most of it is set on a road in a couple of cars. This is one of the most badly made horror films it's been my misfortune to watch, the entire thing just sucks. The acting is predictably awful, & I mean awful.

There isn't much else left to say, Vampires Vs. Zombies is easily one of the worst films ever made. The (V) next to the title on the IMDb's main page for Vampires Vs. Zoimbies indicates that it went straight to video, well that's far too good for this pile of crap as it deserves to go straight on the nearest fire.",Negative "I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.

But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.

This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.

It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.

I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.

I shudder",Negative "Fabulous costumes by Edith Head who painted them on Liz Taylor at her finest!

The SFX are very good for a movie of its age, and the stunt doubles actually looked like the actors, even down to body type, a rarity in movies of this vintage.

A cozy movie, with splendid panoramas -- even when chopped down to pan and scan.",Positive "A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10",Negative "It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.

We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large ""reptile"", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the ""reptile gods."" THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.",Negative "I'm a 53 year-old college professor. I went with my wife and 12 year old daughter. We all enjoyed the movie. The film is original, witty, fast-paced and totally charming. The plot was easy enough for a 10 year old to follow, but twisty enough to keep an adult interested. I thought Emma Roberts did a superb job and the rest of the cast was just fine. My only criticism is that the Los Angeles sets were not as interesting as they should have been. They were functional, but nothing stood out. On the other hand, make-up, costume, lighting, cinematography, editing and directing were excellent. Altogether, I thought it was a totally enjoyable experience. I am disappointed that the professional critics (almost all adult males) savagely attacked the film. Apparently, they have something against films that portray strong, intelligent and independent young women. Their writings reveal more about their own sexist natures than anything about this wonderful family film. I recommend it strongly to every child and every parent.",Positive "Musically speaking Irving Berlin gave Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers another pluperfect musical after Top Hat if that was possible. Although in this case like that Jerome Kern confection Roberta that they were in, Follow the Fleet retained Randolph Scott with another singer, this time Harriet Hilliard.

Randolph Scott is a career Navy CPO and Fred Astaire is an ex-vaudevillian who enlisted in the Navy to forget Ginger Rogers his former partner. But now the two are on shore leave. Fred and Ginger take up right where they left off, and Randy accidentally meets Ginger's dowdy sister Harriet who blossoms into a real beauty. But Randy's a typical love 'em and leave 'em sailor.

Again Irving Berlin wrote a hit filled score with him tightly supervising the production. Ginger gets to do some really outstanding vocalizing with Let Yourself Go which she and Fred later dance to. But the real hit of the show is Let's Face the Music and Dance which is a number done at a Navy show. Sung first by Astaire and later danced to by the pair, Let's Face the Music and Dance is one of the great romantic numbers ever written for the screen. Their dancing on this one is absolute magic.

I'm sure that when I mention Harriet Hilliard a few younger people might ask who that was. But they will know immediately when I mention her in conjunction with her famous husband Ozzie Nelson. That's right Ozzie and Harriet. It's something of a mystery to me why Harriet stopped singing when she just became David and Ricky's mom on television. Then again she didn't even keep her own name.

Neither Ozzie or Harriet sang on television. Ozzie was a pale imitation of Rudy Vallee as a singer, but Harriet could really carry a tune. She sings Get Thee Behind Me Satan and The Moon and I Are Here, But Where Are You, both with real feeling and class. I recommend you see Follow the Fleet if for no other reason than to hear a dimension of Harriet Hilliard incredibly forgotten today.",Positive """Life stinks"" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.

There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.

If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.

This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich.

The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.

Yes indeed, Life Stinks.",Positive "jim carrey can do anything. i thought this was going to be some dumb childish movie, and it TOTALLY was not. it was so incredibly funny for EVERYONE, adults & kids. i saw it once cause it was almost out of theatres, and now it's FINALLY coming out on DVD this tuesday and i'm way to excited, as you can see. you should definitely see it if you haven't already, it was so great!

Liz",Positive "Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.

It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.

I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.

It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.

Embarrassingly bad",Negative "I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of ""The Cutting Edge"", and ""Cadet Kelly"".

The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.

This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.",Negative "I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film ""Stargate"" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation",Positive "All day now I've been watching dinosaurs, and all day they've had the same fundamental problem.

They don't believe in firearms. They just don't seem to have been _told_ about them or something. Bullets _bounce_ off of dinosaurs! Maybe it's because they became extinct millions of years before the invention of gunpowder, and the laws of physics were just different back then... Aah, no. Come on. If they're close enough to chemically operate today, they'd have to be vulnerable to fast (even subsonic) lead projectiles. It's that simple.

Look, the toughest-skinned reptiles on the planet today, alligators and crocodiles, are completely vulnerable to basic rifle fire. They're nothing magic. You can shoot a pistol round right through the heavy scales on their backs. They don't take armor-piercing bullets or anything special. Small bullets penetrate them, they just don't kill them. Somewhat (but not REALLY) large bullets are preferred because the challenge (as with most game) is to kill the animal with one shot, so it doesn't run. (Hunters consider it immoral to allow prey to run off and die unharvested.)

Most animals, including predators, are easily repelled by gunfire. Between the noise, and the pain of even a non-lethal wound, most will run away. An exception are big bears, which are so fearless that they're merely enraged by mortal wounds. Cape buffalo are regarded as highly dangerous because they are well known to charge when wounded. We've seen video of the big bulls of a herd of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from an entire pride of lions. A big cat will run if it can, but if it can't it will charge as a final act of desperation. Where a T.Rex would fit in this spectrum is unknown. Their behavior simply has not been observed. With these larger animals, safe hunting becomes a matter of applying an appropriately large and powerful projectile, and/or applying several of them rapidly enough to counter its charge. With a T.Rex, of course, this could be a serious problem. I've seen a T.Rex skull (they have one in the museum downtown) and carrying a gun big enough to bust that might be impractical. Chewing its neck off with lots of smaller fire might be a more viable approach. Small bullets would still _penetrate_ them, they wouldn't just bounce off just because the animal is too big to easily kill!

So here we have Cortez and his men (this is _before_ the famous Mexican campaign, apparently) captured by American natives and scheduled for sacrifice on the pyramid. It appears that all those human sacrifices were about appeasing the bloodthirst of the pair of T.Rexes that terrorized the continent in the day. Rather than just having their hearts cut out and being fed to the lizards, Cortez et al talk the Aztecs into letting them hunt & kill them. OK, maybe they don't have M-16s like the guys in the ""Carnosaur"" series, but they _do_ have flintlocks, crossbows, pointed sticks (big ones, made from trees) and swords. Maybe that's a little less uneven than squads of soldiers with full auto, but they've several guys and I'd quickly bet on them over a dinosaur. Oh, wait, there's a _cannon_, about a 4-incher. That's just the ticket for busting a Tyrannosaurus' skull! So they lay a trap, with a squad of men, cannon, pointed sticks in a ravine, and lure the first T.Rex into it, using a pretty brown girl as bait. Cortez points out that they'll NOT have time to reload, so they'll have to close the range until they can be certain of their aim. T.Rex totally ignores their volley of flintlock fire, and we see both a crossbow bolt _and_ the cannon ball _bounce_ off! Forget it. End of credibility. A crossbow bolt would defeat Cortez' torso armor, and a 4"" cannon ball might penetrate the hull of a wooden ship! This would also _certainly_ get through the hide, ribcage, or skull of any animal ever to walk this planet. (Do you think a _whale_ could withstand a 4"" cannon ball?) And here's T.Rex, still standing, not even bleeding. So Cortez lures it to the ravine, where it falls onto the pointed sticks, which (I guess by magic) penetrate it and kill it. Yaaay, pointed sticks!

The dinos aren't completely invulnerable to gunfire - they manage to put out an eye of the second one with a pistol. This runs it off, so it's NOT as mean as a bear or a buffalo, at least in the movies.

They kill the second dinosaur with a bomb - made from a gourd filled with gunpowder and gemstones. My money would still be on the cannon. It's engineered function is to concentrate all the gunpowder's energy in one direction - toward the target. A bomb is a much more diffused application of force. A _real_ bomb (NOT a gourd bomb) has a steel casing which contains the explosion to extremely high pressure. (Think: pipe bomb vs firecracker.) A pile of gunpowder set on fire will simply go POOF. (Trust me on that one.)",Negative "as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.

It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.

honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's

This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that.",Negative "Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.",Negative "This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched ""Surface to Air"" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.",Negative "Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific",Positive "When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film.",Positive "I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.

It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.",Negative "There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the ""full picture"", its like someone is ""cropping your view"" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.

Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.",Negative "I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!

Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.

If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!

I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.

Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling.",Negative "This movie has Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill and General Custer all together. Gary Cooper plays Wild Bill and Jean Arthur plays Calamity Jane and Charles Bickford plays the bad guy who sells weapons to the Indians and you can hardly recognize him. This was the first time Cecil B. DeMille and Gary Cooper worked together and the next movie the made was basically the same but set in a different time. This movie starts out with Lincoln's assassination and it also deals with an Indian war. Calamity Jane is in love with Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill has gotten married and now wants to stay home. This movie also deals with Custer's last stand and is far from accurate. Gary Cooper is good as usual and i usually don't like Jean Arthur but i liked her here.",Positive """Laughter is a state of mind"" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of ""Toys""? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst ""big"" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****",Negative "It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show ""Next Action Star."" His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The ""film"" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word ""bet"" or ""gamble."" The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry ""NAS"" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.",Negative "Darcy and her young daughter Pamela are heading out to the country where her mum's boyfriend Peter left his doctor's position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. Although this inn has a terrible past and Pamela learns from one the girl's who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. They called her the 'Tooth Fairy' as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. This work on the inn, has awoken the 'Tooth Fairy'. Now she has her sights on Pamela and her last baby tooth, but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits Pamela.

This flick's old folk myth of the 'Tooth Fairy' doesn't paint her in a very generous way, as you would believe when you were a child. Don't they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares! Another one which did fall into the same category was ""Darkness Falls (2003)"". I can't compare how similar they are in the premises, because I haven't seen the latter, but I mostly read they have basically share the same idea. For a little straight to DVD film, this DTV effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. Low expectations are needed, as I wouldn't class it as an success, but I found it be to marginally entertaining.

Cory Strode and Cookie Rae Brown's story or background for this 'Tooth Fairy' character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. Silly is a good way to describe what's happening in this poorly scripted story, but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. The dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. While the acting is simply sub-par with the bland characters they have to work off, but director Chuck Bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. This kinda makes up for the lack of suspense, the zero scares and generic tone. His direction is reasonably earnest and visually able, where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. The promising opening scene is creepily effective. His pacing can slow up in parts and there's the odd and unnecessary slow-motion scene put in, but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that I wasn't bored.

The make-up special effects provided the goods, as there's enough repulsive gruel and the Tooth Fairy's appearance is especially gooey. The figure of the tooth Fairy can look threatening in its black robe, bubbling make-up and swift movements. Being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. Child actors can be incredibly annoying, but Nicole Muñoz was decent in her part. Lochlyn Munro and Chandra West are somewhat solid, but can be a little too causal in their performances as Peter and Darcey. The radiantly gorgeous Carrie Anne Fleming is one of their lodgers. P.J Soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn.

I thought it was a okay time-waster that has a sound concept, which just isn't fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. Watchable nonsense, but at the same time extremely forgettable.",Negative "This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.",Negative "This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back.",Negative "They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good ""bad guy"" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)

I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?",Negative "There are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this ""movie"".

Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.

The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying ""You're supposed to laugh now!"". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.

Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...

Pain!",Negative The critics are dumb. This movie is funny and smart. I loved this movie a lot. Why does everyone hate this movie so much. I wish people would love this movie more than they don't. Ben Stiller and Jack Black are true comedians and they put through a lot of work to make this movie. I don't see you people out there making movies like them. So people should just watch it and not comment it. I like this movie. It is OK through it all. There are parts were it get's dumb but at least they made it. Jerry Stiller would love this because this movie has the acting just like the show King Of Queens. But this is better than that. I can't believe this was rated so low.,Positive "A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.

Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.

Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.",Negative "Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, ""who's who"" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.

Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, ""ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).

This film...it had potential it really did. It had the ""star power"", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE...""ACTRESS APOCALYPSE""....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.

I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason.",Negative "Black Candles is rather a muddled mess from the same director that brought us ""Vampyres"" and much later, ""Rest in Pieces"", among others..I'm only noting the ones I've seen. At any rate, we have a couple making love and then somewhere near by a pin is poised over a voodoo doll and then pierces it, and the man keels over. Not sure if it was good for either of them, at that point. Fast forward to where the man's sister has come to the house to investigate and hear the reading of the will, or something to that effect, and of course everybody else except her is in on something, which happens to be devil worship. It's really hard to say who is who at moments during the movie and it does get a bit confusing at times. To spice things up though, there's a simulated bestiality scene (I HOPE it's simulated) with a black goat, sure to be a crowd pleaser. Ugh. At times this echoes ""Rosemary's Baby"", minus the baby, because the hostess is always giving one woman herbal tea and the place reeks of whatever nasty Satanic herbs these are too, because that keeps getting remarked upon. However, the herbs aren't the only thing that reeks about this film. The end seems to be back to the beginning again, and many viewers might find themselves wondering where they've been during the middle part. It's not unwatchable, it's just not very good, and I guess it all depends on what you like to see in films, and there wasn't much here that did anything much for me. 3 out of 10.",Negative "David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.

Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).

I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.

Worth seeing by Lynch fans.",Negative "I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it.",Positive "I'm glad that this is available on DVD now. This film is an excellent example of the triumph of content & style over empty-headed flashing lights & constant loud noises.

Essentially, if you have a short attention span or lack the wit & imagination to engage with literary narrative you won't like this film. The reasons for this are quite simple, but unfortunately rarely achieved: Matthew Jacobs has done a fantastic job of transposing the story of Catherine Storr's novel 'Marianne Dreams' successfully to a screenplay. An unenviable task as anyone who has seen a film of a book will undoubtedly know.

The casting is excellent, allowing director Bernard Rose to use the actors in a way that is rarely seen now; they indulge in the craft of acting! I know, I know, actors doing their job & acting instead of resorting to mugging inanely at the camera lens whist a kaleidoscope of car chases, explosions & fire fights break out around them is a genuinely rare treat, but it does actually happen in this film.

This brings me to the final reason that this is a film for the imaginative thinker & not the spoon-fed tabloid reader - Apart from a solid script, direction & acting, it relies on atmosphere, suspense & implied horror. If it is to be categorized as horror then the presentation of 'Paper House' is more in the vein of Sophocles than Tobe Hooper.

In conclusion then, if you like lots of loud noises, explosions, constant cuts, & bright flashing colours you'd be better off watching 'Transformers', but if you like a suspenseful story which unfolds through a skillful & evocative use of narrative without insulting your intelligence by force feeding you cacophonous nonsense then this might just be your thing.",Positive "I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be ""55 Days at Peking"". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!",Negative """An album of songs so old everyone thinks they're new."" This film has the elusive combination of pace and mood that set some films apart from the opening moments. And why not? Towering talent from Dame Judith Dench as a widow who plays saxaphone with a street musician to help him get the songs right, to Olympia Dukakis as the merry widow living in a Scottish castle on the alimony of her many marriages, to Ian Holm as the drummer who loved all the members of a World War II all girl (more or less) swing band. But wait, there's more. Add in Leslie Caron on bass, and the incomparable Clio Laine on lead vocal, at last, and the Blonde Bombshells are the hottest band in England since the Beatles. Well, OK, not really, but this movie is a winner.

Elizabeth (Dench) spends the whole film trying to reunite the Blonde Bombshells to play at her granddaughter's school dance. And before you roll your eyes, imagine how difficult and courageous it would be for a bunch of sexegenarian women to step onstage in front of the Britney Spears generation following an act called ""Open Wound.""

In an age when actresses careers are over by the time they're 30, most bands' second album is a greatest hits compilation, and music more than a month old has almost no chance of airplay, it's great to see real talent, real music and a really good movie come from, where else, the BBC.

I love this movie, and I know I'll watch it many more times, and enjoy it more each time.",Positive "Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it.",Negative "A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.

",Positive "I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school.",Negative "I'm sick of people whining about Ewoks! True, they're not the best thing that ever happened to Star Wars, but they DID happen, so deal with it! Besides, they ARE cute, and I don't care if they're marketable. Yubb Nubb!

This movie always leaves me in tears. It's perfect. The end could not be better. I'm excited for The Phantom Menace because it will suddenly throw the focus of the whole story from Luke to Anakin. I love how he is revealed at the end - it would be too unresolved any other way. So those of you who are complaining that Vader's helmet was removed, take a moment to think about it. It's very effective. Vader, the man who hid behind a mask for 20 years, is finally revealed as a sick-looking man. He is not entirely machine - he's vulnerable.

I don't know how the casting director happened to pick such good actors in A New Hope. They all do so well. They are believable characters. Hamill does an excellent job with his dramatic character development. Fisher does a fine job being a female role model (I mean, come on! She killed Jabba even when so many others had failed!). Harrison Ford - need I say more?

The music is once again brilliant. It's so very touching and significant when you can pick out character themes at different parts of the movie. The best climax is when Luke shouts ""NOOO!"" and jumps out to fight his father in the Final Battle. John Williams is nothing short of a genius! What an amazing man!

Already, the movie has so much more meaning for me because of Episode I. I can't wait to finally see it in the theatres (CAN I WAIT???) and then watch the original trilogy yet again.

Bravo!",Positive "Everybody knows that Gregory Widen's original ""The Prophecy"" didn't really require a sequel, but you also don't need a degree in rocket science hanging above your chimney to realize that further cash-ins on this profitable horror concept were inevitable. Part two is a very prototypic example of a straight-to-video sequel, meaning the creative and convoluted plot of the original has been simplified a lot in favor of more action, more witty one-liners and a lot more eerie religious scenery. The only good news is that the producers managed to keep Christopher Walken for the role of Gabriel, and he delivers another gloriously brazen performance that promptly justifies the price of a rental. If it wasn't for Walken's performance (and perhaps a couple of players in the supportive cast like Brittany Murphy and Glenn Danzig), ""The Prophecy II"" surely would have disappeared into oblivion straight after its release. The movie begins with Gabriel literally getting spat out of hell to proceed with his ongoing War of Heaven here on earth. The purpose of his battle this time is to prevent the baby of nurse Valerie Rosales (Jennifer Beals) from getting born. For you see, her unborn child is the first ever hybrid between a heavenly angel and an earthly ""monkey"" and the birth of such a superior being would imply the downfall of Gabriel's evil dominion. Thus, just as in the first movie, he engages a suicidal accomplice to assist him and hunts Valerie all the way down to the Eden for the final showdown. ""The Prophecy II"" is an endurable and occasionally even entertaining movie as long as you don't make comparisons with the original and as long as you manage to overlook the multiple plot holes and errors in continuity. Whenever the storyline becomes too tedious, the makers luckily enough always insert a near-brilliant Christopher Walken moment to distract you. His interactions with the rebellious Izzy and particularly his ignorance regarding modern earthly technologies often result in worthwhile and memorable sequences. On a slightly off-topic note, I often felt like ""The Prophecy II"" ambitions to look similar to ""Terminator II"" … Gabriel's resurrection looked somewhat like the teleportation of a futuristic cyborg and the Eden location, where the final battle takes place, looks very similar to the steel factory where ""Terminator II"" ended as well. Coincidence, I guess? Overall, this is an inferior and passable sequel but still worth checking out in case you're a fan of Christopher Walken's unique acting charisma (and who isn't?).",Negative "This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty ""look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure"" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.",Negative "I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.

The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more ""stagey"" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.

Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.

This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation.",Positive "Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.

Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!",Negative "I sense out there a mix of confusion and varying degrees of personal taste in the reactions to this film. Yes, there are vampire stereotypes. Yes, there are scientific stereotypes covered here. Even martial arts stereotypes. All well and good, and sure, not all perfectly done. However, I sense one crucial point about this film is being overlooked...the cultural significance of its location. The film is set in Pensacola, Florida, and does not try to avoid saying so. That's a bold move in the film world today, and a rare treat for fans of indy films. And indeed, it may not be the last. Pensacola is world renowned as a Navy town, an aviation town, a lumber town, and sometimes even as a hotbed for political controversy. Rarely is it seen as a growing film town. But that's all changing now. More film companies are coming in to shoot. And more native Pensacolians are discovering the power of cinema for themselves. This film is part of a growing trend of Pensacola-based indy films, and more are on the way. Pensacola is making a big noise in the global film community, and by and by, the world is taking more notice. Watch and listen, world. The Pensacolians are coming. Like a virus.",Positive "Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter – albeit resourceful – showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence – since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingénue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend – curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)…though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun – particularly at a compact 73 minutes.",Positive "This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.

When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.

The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?",Positive "I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the ""expert"" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.

Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:

-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.

And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!

Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.

On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).

Save your time and money: don't see this movie.",Negative "Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.",Positive "I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie ""rocked"". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not ""so bad it's good"" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole ""It sucks, get it!"" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells ""Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.",Negative "Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a ""watchable"" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for (""A Hazard of Hearts"" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)",Negative "The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense

The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000

Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?

The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig

Direction is outdated Music is bad

Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo",Negative "1937's ""Stella Dallas"" with Barbara Stanwyck hasn't exactly aged well--how anyone thought a semi-updated version of the story would work now is a real puzzler. Perhaps they thought jaunty, cheerfully brash Bette Midler could make something out of it, but this hoary script defeats her. Plot about a female bartender having a baby out of wedlock, and years later giving the young girl over to the child's wealthy father so she'll have a shot at a better life, can't escape tatty, old-fashioned trappings and sentiment. Midler works best with a movie director who can control her excesses, but that fails to happen here; Stephen Collins is stolid as the man who changes her life, but Trini Alvarado is well-cast as Midler's daughter. This is what used to be referred to as a ""woman's picture"", a wallow, but it doesn't pass muster because it stays too faithful to its 1930's origins. *1/2 from ****",Negative "I saw this movie with my family and it was great! This film is more than just a documentary (that offers not more than cold facts) with long mono/-duologue's and lots of charts...The complete ""power"" of this movie comes from the impressive pictures being filmed under water, in the air or the Arctic.With watching this movie you can learn more about our planet than with just reading a book, it shows that WE are embedded in the circular flow of life. This movie is not only for ""environmental fanatics"" although people that want to look a good movie with a message should watch it. This movie taught me that we are not only living on the earth...we live with and through the earth and all plants and animals grow and die with us.",Positive "Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.",Positive "This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular ""Pride and Prejudice,"" ""Emma"" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film.",Positive "You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This ""epic"" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny ""wisecracks"" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.

""A Yank in Libya"" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC ""extravaganza"" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.",Negative "Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.

This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.

This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.",Negative "With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking",Positive "This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!

I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !",Negative "A woman left alone after the death of her husband finds herself attracted to her son's friend and handy man. In a slightly twisted story, the woman begins sleeping with the handy man in an effort to revive herself. The twisted part? The handy man is also her daughter's on and off love interest.

As if this wasn't strange enough, the mother manages to fall for this man and when her daughter finds out, she blames not only her dysfunctional relationship but also her messed up life on her poor mother.

Though you may think badly of this woman, the truth is movie manages to portray her in a positive light. Beautifully played by Anne Reid, this character has dimension and portrays great emotion.

A truly brilliant performance and an enjoyable film.

8/10",Positive "This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it!

I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!

The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical!

They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story.",Positive "Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.",Negative "Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.

There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.

That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts ""I'm outta here"" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, ""my bad."") People address each other by rank -- ""Lieutenant"", ""Boatswain's Mate,"" ""Commander,"" as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple ""Mister"" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called ""Senior Master Chief"" in 1950.

Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in ""Animal House"", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.

Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. ""And just let life pass you by?"", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.

These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. ""Bombardier,"" ""Airial Gunner,"" that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).

I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.

Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe ""G. I. Jane"", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in ""The Young Lions."" There the victim is a Jew. Or try ""From Here to Eternity,"" in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like ""Cool Hand Luke."" No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.

Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.",Negative "My Super Ex Girlfriend turned out to be a pleasant surprise for me, I was really expecting a horrible movie that would probably be stupid and predictable, and you know what? It was! But this movie did have so many wonderful laughs and a fun plot that anyone could get a kick out of. I know that this was a very cheesy movie, but Uma and Anna were just so cool and Steve was such a great addition along with a great cast that looked like they had so much fun and that's what made the movie really work.

Jenny Johnson(scary, that's my best friend's actual name) is not your typical average librarian looking woman, when Matt, your average male, asks her out, he's in for more than he expected, he's asked G-Girl out on a date, the super hero of the world! But when he finds out what a jealous and crazy girl she really is and decides that it may be a good idea that they spend some time apart, but Jenny won't have it since he's fallen for another girl, Hannah, and she will make his life a living hell, I mean, let's face it, he couldn't have chosen a better girl to break up with.

The effect were corny, but you seriously move past them quickly, the story and cast made the story really work and I loved Uma in this movie, it was such a step up from Prime. My Super Ex Girlfriend is a fun movie that you shouldn't really take seriously, it's just a cute romantic comedy that I think if I could get a laugh out of it, anyone could.

7/10",Positive "This is just a joke of a movie,they lost me already at the opening scene (Spoilerwarning) dangerous creature kills other creature in his cage,this is watched by a scientist that works there on a monitor and guess what she does,well lets go in to the cage to check the stuff out,omg how dumb do those writers think human beings are come on thats the same like jumping in a fish tank with a great white shark because it ate your goldfish...Pretty useless and even more dumber.And i will not even talk about the cast because they aren't worth the effort. why they didn't fired the guy that wrote that immediately is a mystery to me.....And this kinda dumbness continues the entire movie. Only good thing where the cgi that is better then average for these kinda low-budget movies.

If these kinda things don't bother you go see it,but be warned if your IQ is above 60 you will probably hate it.",Negative "Based on a true story, this series is a gem within its kind. The slave that becomes queen by capturing the heart of the most powerful man in the village.

In the diamond mining town of Tijuco in Brazil, the diamond commender--appointed by the king of Portugal--is the ultimate authority. Having grown up in the relative security of his house, the young and beautiful Xica da Silva finds her world threatened when he decides to sell her to a whorehouse in town, refusing to recognize that a black slave girl could be his daughter. In a desperate bid to save herself, Xica steals the diamonds collected by the diamond commender for the king, intending to use them to escape. The king's army arrives to collect the diamonds the very next day, however, and when the loot turns up missing, the diamond commender is led away in chains, his family dispossessed and thrown out in the street with only the clothes on their backs. Martin, the diamond commender's son, swears vengeance. Xica and the other slaves, however, are sold at auction, and Xica ends up in the home of the Sergeant Major, an old man who bought her solely to slake his lust. To the town of Tijuco, however, comes the new diamond commender, the elegant and ruthless Joao Fernandes. Immediately struck by Xica's beauty, he manipulates the Sergeant Major into selling her to him. And thus begins a love story, filled with danger, intrigue and passion, between a willful nobleman and a crafty slave girl who rises to one day become queen.

The series is filled with rich details of the era's beliefs, superstitions, politics, fashion, etc. etc. And it really manages to captivate your attention for every minute. At times funny with a sarcastic and dark humor, full of suspense and unexpected twists. ""Xica da Silva"" is definitely a must. I wish I could buy the whole series on DVD.",Positive "This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.

Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.

One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.

The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.

Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.",Positive "Nay Sayers of this film are likely bitter from some seriously unrequited love. This is a great film for anyone capable of understanding Johnny Mathis's song, or any song from that era: Bobby Darin's, Beyond the Sea... or Stan Getz's, The Girl From Ipanema, et al...

I measure films by how many times I have to watch them before I'm satisfied... Chances Are had me back a few good times.

I also watch the synergy between the cast... I thought they worked well together.

Open your heart, and let the comedic magic of film transport you.

'Alan",Positive "i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie.",Positive "This is the weepy that Beaches never was. As much as I wanted to love Beaches, it always seemed too hurried for me to ""feel"" for it (its soundtrack is one of my favorite albums though). Stella, on the other hand, moves at a slower (and occasionally too slow) pace and though it's somewhat manipulative in its tears-inducing tale about a self-sacrificial mother, it works because Bette and the rest of the cast turn in great performances. 10/10",Positive "I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the ""family hour"". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise ""Vincenzo"" from the TV films.",Positive "I´m glad that someone has made a movie about how hard it is to risk your heart for a second time. Or third. This movie is exactly what it promises to be - lovely, amusing and it gives you this good feeling around your heart when it ends. The plot might be not very inventive, but there are millions of ways to tell the story and they have not been all used yet. The cast is perfectly selected although Scott Wolf does not look like a father of an eight year old not even when he is wearing a suit. So, the sparks are on all the right places, supporting cast is lovably supporting and although you could probably predict the whole movie you would not want to switch the channel. It is just the right sort of entertainment for a Sunday evening.",Positive "I thought the whole movie played out beautifully with fresh images and interesting cinematography the whole way through it. The actors were on top of their character's backs in nearly perfect timing and looked great. The music was lush and well-thought-out. It even had a decent twist of an ending. So what's with everyone voting it down? The story wasn't entirely fresh (felt like a remnant of ""Running Man"" with the whole television show idea), but the attitude towards Christianity and Judaism about how the public picks their Messiah certainly sounded true enough. It made sense to follow this one man who was put before a modern crowd and to put him on a pedestal because of his opportunity.

It's possible that Christians or other religious people pick this up because the movie has the word ""God"" in it, but that shows what the filmmakers were trying to do is to teach a possibility to people who maybe never saw the world like this, especially in the modern world where Christianity has been more and more accepted and forgotten about by some.

I gave it a 7/10 stars here on IMDb. I thought every ounce of the movie was entertaining and original, for the most-part. Check it out if you're not too offended to see an entertaining film from Madrid, Spain, about possibilities of the coming modern Messiah to a TV near you.",Positive "This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked ""The Sound Of Music"" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital ""L."" This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in ""West Side Story"" and Audrey Hepburn in ""My Fair Lady.""

Yul Brynner is ""King Mongkut"" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't ""progressive,"" as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as ""Anna Leonowens"") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in ""The Magnificent Seven,"" Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.",Negative "This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.",Negative Witty and disgusting. Brash and intelligent. BASEketball redefines comedy/sports with a pot spoof of an easy target. Makes other so called comedies like dead boring. One of the best of all time! Trey Parker and Matt Stone play their roles as losers with apt perfection.,Positive "In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life – preferably sooner than later – that you have to watch ""Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that ""Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's ""The Birds"", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called ""eco-horror"" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of ""Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the ""Jaws"" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin (""The Addams Family"") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life.",Negative """The Mother"" tells of a recently widowed mid-60's mother of two adult children (Reid) who, on the heels of her husband's death, finds herself awakening from a life of sleepwalking as she has an affair with a young carpenter who is also her daughter's married lover. The film dwells on the quietly passive Mom, her tenuous relationship with her grown son and daughter, the silent needs she attempts to soothe in bed with her young lover, and the convolutions arising therefrom. A somewhat antiseptic drama with rumbling psychodramatic undercurrents, ""The Mother"" does an excellent job of dealing with uncomfortable issues realistically while avoiding gratuitous sensationalism. Will play best with more mature audiences, possibly women, who may better empathize with the central character, her needs and issues. (B+)",Positive "One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a ""cold case""-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.

Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem.",Positive "For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the ""Second Renaissance"" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.

What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, ""God"" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by ""Man's own image"".

As far as the shorts go in the collection, ""The Second Renaissance: Part I"" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become ""the architect of its own destruction."" Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.

--PolarisDiB",Positive "As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including ""Pittsburgh"") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as ""The Sand Diviner,"" who foretells all that will happen. The supposed ""happy ending"" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.",Negative "I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? ""Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well."" Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films.",Positive "Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's ""The Terminator"" with werewolves.

No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of ""You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never."" The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.

The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.

For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.

It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please.",Negative "This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.

Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.

I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.",Negative "In Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.

SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.

The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity.",Negative "A beautiful new print of ""Zabriskie Point"" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful ""extras"" will be out in the near future.

I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a ""near-miss"" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.

The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.

There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.

Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.

I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.

I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans.",Positive "I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.",Negative "This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace ""krimi"" series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo ""Whatever Happened to Solange?"", which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences.

Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark ""kicker"" of hiding the ""Ende"" card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.

Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers.",Positive "After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his ""unfinished"" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five ""venoms"" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!",Positive "If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. ""I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me",Negative "OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.

Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:

I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.

The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.

Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.",Negative "if you didn't live in the 90's or didn't listen to rapper EVER!! this movie might be OK for you, but any for any fan or any single person who ever listened to rap this movie was boring and there was no point in the movie where i said thats interesting or i didn't know that. another thing that bugged me was it made it look like anything in his life he did was very easy there was no struggle he made jail look easy, selling drugs, and even rapping it wasn't realistic. i think if the movie where released in about 15 years from now it might have more of an impact maybe!!! good rap movies hustle and flow, get rich or die trying not notorious",Negative "This show is dull, lame, and basically rips off all sorts of various things in order to make it ""original."" First off: The animation is so ugly... Johnny's hideous... and everyone's annoying. The twins look like teen female Dexters from ""Dexter's Lab,"" and Johnny is almost like a more intelligent male Dee Dee (also from ""Dexter's Lab."") Secondly: The plots... are painfully lame, making them hard to follow. The gags are corny, and nothing really makes me feel compelled to laugh a little bit... especially when it tries to be funny. I only saw two episodes, but those alone turned me off.

Third off: The whole theme song starts off by ripping off the tune to Green Day's ""American Idiot."" And, while I am not a big fan of that band, I find it really dumb that they would take the same opening melody, and then subtly change it, in order to make it their own.

Case in point... it's a big fat ugly bore. 1/10",Negative "This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.

This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are ""heavy"" and inaccessible.

",Positive "Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and ""find herself"", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.

This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film.",Positive "The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the ""The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror"" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him ""Tell your master that we are here!"". Dominic(Ironsides) replies ""He already knows"" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying ""We're not going to talk to you any more!"". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.",Negative "This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor)

Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode ""Eddie Monster"" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee",Negative "... and how they bore you right out of your mind! The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse ""horror"" with light comedy. This movie introduces a paleontologist who finds drawings of an aquatic dinosaur underneath Crater Lake...a meteor falls from the sky, and an aquatic dinosaur of the claymation variety begins to terrorize and eat the inhabitants surrounding Crater Lake. The whole matter is taken care of by Steve our local sheriff. Much of the film - when not showing pools of blood left behind from what we imagine must have been the beast dining - is spent following the bumbling antic of two guys named Arnie and Mitch who run a boat rental place. They try so bad to be funny, that we get lines like, looking at a business sign, Mitch saying to Arnie ""You spelled bait wrong, it's spelled B-A-T-E."" The laughs were rather scarce here. We then see them get drunk together and imagine a tree trunk to be the dinosaur. Laurel and Hardy watch out! The dinosaur looks fake, but the movie is fun in a bad way. And at the very least, the lake is beautiful.",Negative "Relative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.

Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder HIM.",Negative "Beautiful story of Wisconsin native, Dan Jansen, and his real life, agonizing struggle to win the 1994 Olympic Gold Medal in Speed Skating, despite his overwhelming emotional loss with the death of his much loved Best Friend and Family Member; his Sister, Jane.

This story's main focus is to sensitively portray the real life emotional turmoil of grief, that one feels in loosing a special Loved One, and the struggle to productively cope and rise above the great loss! It is the incredible story of Dan Jansen's heartbreak in loosing his beloved Sister to Leukemia, his struggle to cope with the intensity of his grief, while still maintaining his Dream to win at the Olympics, and his ultimate triumph in winning the Gold Medal in Speed Skating for America, and in honor of his Sister's memory; thereby fulfilling his childhood promise to Jane!

After Dan Jansen's remarkable Gold Medal performance in the Winter Olympic in Lillihamer, Norway, he established a Foundation in 1994 to help fight Leukemia, which claimed the life of his Sister, and to support youth sports programs, educational and scholarship awards. His Dan Jansen Foundation promotes the philosophy that: ""as his Father always told him at a young age: 'there is more to life than skating around in circles!' Maintaining a proper perspective is key! So, too, is setting goals, and realizing one's Dreams through perseverence, overcoming adversity and never giving up!""

Recommended for anyone who has ever suffered the great loss of someone very special, and dearly loved within your life! And, for anyone who still believes in the Achievement of Dreams, and Never Giving Up!",Positive "I for one have shamelessly enjoyed every episode of Pushing Daisies this season, and hope that the writers' strike won't brutally end the beginnings of a very good show. Ned is a pie maker who owns a restaurant in the middle of town and has a secret talent. Emmerson is a private investigator with his own unique quirks like his love of knitting. Charlotte (Chuck) is the once-dead-but-not-anymore childhood friend and sunny spot of Ned's life. Olive is the jealous but good-hearted waitress. Oh, and add the dog. Jim Dale brings all the characters together with his wonderful narration of the show. Chuck, Ned, and Emmerson along with Olive and occasionally the dog solve multiple murder mysteries with the assistance of Ned's special gift of bringing dead people back to life. The show is funny, clean, and romantic in a very cute and good-hearted way, and I'd recommend it to anyone.",Positive "You can't imagine how I looked forward to King of the Ants. As a massive Gordon fan, I awaited the European premiere with wicked anticipation.especially since I loved Dagon - Gordon's last achievement - so much. King of the Ants premiered here in my country and it was Gordon himself who came to present it. Unfortunately, I couldn't go and congratulate him for it afterwards. King of the Ants is his most uninspired and mediocre film to date. Really, the quality level never surpassed ordinary TV-thriller standards. The plot outline is terribly routine and with the exception of a few poor scenes, the typical Gordon-touch is never recognized. On top of that, the already weak script has more holes than a Swiss bowl of cheese! It involves a young wannabe-crook who's hired to commit a murder. So he does.and of course they're not paying him.and of course he falls in love with the victim's wife.and of course he avenges himself.. Only the sequences in which the guy descents in a spiral of madness are worth a mention and they're the only ones reminding you of the fact you're still watching a Stuart Gordon film. The acting performances are below average with McCenna as the heroic lowlife, George `Norm Peterson' Wendt as the chubby bastard and Kari Wuhrer as the good-hearted sex bomb. Extremely illogical things happen constantly and the dullness of the story becomes irritating very quickly, while the make-up effects aren't enough to even satisfy amateur-horror fans. I read a few other comments on King of the Ants, claiming it's Gordon's best since it finally is a thought-provoking and mature film.Well, if that's the case.I rather stay immature and give Re-Animator another viewing, thank you very much. Oh well, I guess every good director runs out of steam and inspiration eventually.too bad it also overcame Stuart Gordon.",Negative "Being a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.

I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).

Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.

Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.

The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.

It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.

Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.

Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in ""Sling Blade,"" ""Bandits"" and ""Bad Santa,"" and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical ""Lifetime"" flick.",Negative "There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.

But so help me now is not that time.

Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with ""Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong"" and ""Extreme Doritos"" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.

I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.

The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.",Negative "so halfway through the season, i got so caught up in school and my activities that i didn't realize that the show had been canceled halfway through, which is crap.

i think the followers of this show should write fox and ask them to at least finish filming so that a the season can be released on DVD later. maybe then they'll see how many people were disappointed that the show didn't survive its first season.

i loved the show and looked forward to it every thursday after the OC. can you imagine my disappointment when i came back to try and watch the show only to discover that it had disappeared? needless to say, i'm not very happy with fox right now. even more so after discovering that NO ENDING WAS FILMED. i mean, if you're going to work on a project, at least finish it to see what happens. a half filmed show is like a half made car, it's pretty much useless. fox, film the damn ending and give some of the show's fans some peace.",Positive "The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them!",Positive "I don't think anyone besides Terrence Malick and maybe Tran Anh Hung makes cinema on a purer level than Claire Denis. That said, I don't love this, her newest film, quite as much as her 2001 masterpiece ""Trouble Every Day"" (although it comes very close), which itself is one of my absolute favorite films. It it only because the narrative here is possibly slightly too elliptical for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, the fact that this film barely has a plot at all is really one of the best things about it, but I think Denis took it about one degree farther than it needed to go and consequently the film does flirt with incomprehensibility, and a few key plot points should have been clarified somehow (like that the main character goes to South Korea to get his heart transplant, instead of just showing him there all of a sudden without any explanation of where he is or why he is there). Also some of the other characters seemed unnecessary and as if they were just excuses for Denis to use actors she likes yet again (Beatrice Dalle's character in particular is a little distracting because you keep expecting that she is going to have some significance). Still, the film is incredibly absorbing and the cinematography is beyond amazing. It is definitely very much a masterpiece in it's own way. At least as good as Denis' more highly-acclaimed ""Beau travail"", if not better. Claire Denis has to be my favorite French director at this point, better than Leos Carax even. Also I have to admit that the South Korean sequence really does do ""Lost in Translation"" better than that film itself does (and I, unlike some, am a huge fan of that film as well).",Positive """Winchester '73"" marked the first of a series of westerns involving James Stewart and director Anthony Mann. As in most of them Stewart's hero has an violent edge that threatens to explode at any time.

The title refers to a ""one in a thousand"" rifle that is up for competition at a rifle shoot held in Dodge City on July 4, 1876. Into town comes Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High Spade (Millard Mitchell) who are on the trail of Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) for a past dastardly deed. They arrive just in time to see Marshal Wyatt Earp (Will Geer) running saloon girl Lola (Shelley Winters) out of town. It turns out that Dutch Henry is also in town for the rifle shoot. Lin and Dutch Henry shoot it out for the coveted prize with Lin winning but Dutch Henry robs Lin of the gun and escapes.

Lin and High Spade trail Dutch Henry across country where they encounter Lola with her cowardly beau Steve Miller (Charles Drake) hold up in a U.S. Cavalry camp awaiting attack by the Indians led by Young Bull (Rock Hudson) who has acquired the prized rifle by murdering wily gun runner John McIntyre. He had got the weapon by cheating Dutch Henry at poker. Young Bull is killed during the attack and the gun passes to Steve.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lola and Steve meet up with notorious gunman Waco Johnny Dean (Dan Duryea) who kills Steve and takes the valued rifle and Lola for himself. When Dean meets up with Dutch Henry, he allows him to take back ""his gun"" planning to murder him later. In the town of Tuscosa, Lin kills Dean as Dutch Henry's plans of holding up the bank go bad and he escapes into the hills with Lin in pursuit. In one of the best final shoot outs ever, the two meet in the final showdown.

I believe that this movie was the only one of the Stewart/Mann collaborations that was shot in B&W. It is beautifully photographed, especially the scenes in the ""wide open spaces"" and in particular, the final showdown. Stewart playing against type, plays the hero with a violent revenge motive edge, an emotion that he would carry into future films with Mann.

As in most Universal westerns, this one boasts a cast of seasoned veterans and contract players of the day. In addition to those mentioned above, J.C. Flippen appears as the cavalry sergeant, Steve Brodie, James Millican, John Doucette and Chuck Roberson as various henchmen, Ray Teal as the sheriff pursuing Duryea, Tony Curtis and James Best as rookie soldiers and Edmund Cobb, Chief Yowlachie and John War Eagle in various roles in the Dodge City sequence.

A classic western in every sense of the word. It was responsible for re-generating Stewart's career as an action star.",Positive "Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.",Negative "I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.

That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.

The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.

If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face.",Negative "As the front cover says ""The hamlet of our time, for our time"".

I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.

This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.

just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.",Negative "Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the show 'South Park' , return with something entirely different.They create a new sport that combines baseball and basketball.This sport is known as baseketball.It's like basketball except that the rules of baseball are involved and there's another letter e in the title.Here's how you play: you just shoot the ball while these two guys try to distract you from making the shot.Sounds simple.In fact, I might try it one day.After the game hits the streets, it soon becomes a huge success.Who would've known that 2 immature friends could invent a sport that became so successful?

My opinion

'Baseketball' is a very crude and silly spoof filled with lots of slapstick violence, yet it actually delivers some laughs and plenty of entertainment.A definite recommendation for those of you who like slapstick and rude humor.",Positive "I voted this a 10 out of 10 simply because it is the best animated story I have been able to see in quite some time. The animation is stunning. The artwork behind each and every landscape was beautiful. From the colors to the lighting to the not standard fare of artistry. I was amazed. Moving beyond the beauty on the screen, you are immersed in a storyline that is at once timeless and at the same turn fresh. Character development is brief yet these touchstone moments are exactly what is needed to clue the viewer in to what and why and how the character has come to where they stand. I'm impressed with the entire affair and think this is a must see for the entire family.",Positive "This movie was yet another waste of time... Why oh why do I keep renting crap like this?... someone please tell me... *sigh* Oh well. back to the movie at hand: Cube Zero is probably worth it if you REALLY REALLY enjoyed the first movie, (like I did), and just want to check out what's up in the last (hopefully) movie scraped together just to keep some poor actors and screenwriters employed, then of course this is the movie for you. But if you are looking for a good movie with good acting and a fantastic plot... *evil grin* then this movie is definitely for you :-D.... OK I'm lying... At best this movie sucks. OK, I have to admit that certain elements to it was cool.. well.. coolish... and I laughed quite a few times, prolly at the wrong things, but nevertheless I was amused. :-) But all in all the few things that barely makes the ""ok"" category isn't enough to make this movie worth it at all.. Unless you count ""Manos - Hand of Fate"" one of the top ten movies EVER!",Negative "Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be ""the best film ever made"" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.",Negative "Along with ""King of the Rocket Men"", this was still being repeated on BBC TV in the early to mid eighties. If I was loading up a time capsule of this period both these series would definitely go in.

Someone watching it for the first time will think it is silly but this is one of the best examples of the ""Serials"". Don Del Oro will make you laugh (When I was little my nickname for him was Mr Dustbin head) and it was funny upon being shot at he says ""Your bullets can't harm me"" then he stumbles back, seemingly less than happy. I also like the way he dispenses with Sebastian in the first episode.

I watched this again because I had good memories of it from years back, there are some good stunts and good music, it has the ingredients you expect including water,rockfalls,runaway carts... Apart from the first episode(with Ralph Faulkner)the swordplay wasn't nearly as good as I remembered it, and yes it features the inevitable ""flashback"" episode! It gets 8 out of 10 because it still suffers from slow pace, padding and the other tricks. If you are interested in these serials I recommend the book by William Witney, ""In a Door, Into a Fight, Out a Door, Into a Chase"" although there is only a small entry about this series in it.",Positive "I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.

We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.

The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.

But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: ""If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction"") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, ""Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?"" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work

Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.",Negative "and not in a fun-to-watch way. it's just bad. it's shocking that people have posted positive things about it here. the story sucks, the acting is bad, it's not scary, the special effects aren't special--oh no! the blackboard has hands coming out of it! oh gee--the mirror turned into water! the hair, clothes and makeup in the '50s scenes aren't accurate, and they got a middle-aged man with a receding hairline to play the high-school version of himself. this is like later-on nightmare on elm street stuff. i enjoy sitting down to watch a cheesy horror movie as much as anyone else, but there are better bad ones out there to choose from.",Negative "Just saw the movie, and the scary thing was, the people talking during the movie sounded just like the actors. The movie had its moments, but also lagged and was rather sick. It was all meant to be a farce, but once you see the pathetic lives of the people in the movie, you think to yourself ""People like this are all around us"" All attempts at getting the audience's sympathy are dashed as the actors do one stupid thing after another. On the plus side, there are some great (and funny) insults. I think I would wait for video- but it was a good laugh. WARNING- Jerry takes his shirt off during the movie!! (not a pretty sight!)",Positive "This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. I cannot express how bad it is. I honestly wanted to kill myself several times through this atrocious experience just to have the pain end. I recommend instead of seeing this movie, you bathe in acid then you will at least know a fraction of the pain without all of the scars.

I had such high expectations when I read the back of the DVD case, and when in the beginning it added that Jesus was following them I was so excited... then by the end I wanted to kill myself. I mean a twenty-three minute introduction to the most annoying characters in the history of cinema... JUST PAIN! Monkeys could have done a better job editing this trash. At least they would have thrown feces and blurred some of the garbage. It would have made it better to have not seen any of the horror.

It wasn't that I didn't get the jokes, it's that they were not only not funny, they repeated themselves like twenty times. Apparently, something isn't funny unless you see it like a million times.

Do not under any circumstances see this. People have rated 'Manos the Hands of Fate' as the worlds worst movie. I have seen that too and agree that it is bad... but ALAS it is only the second worst. 'Fatty Drives the Bus' is by far worse.

This deserves all kind of harsh language, but I can't write that here so just imagine I swore a whole bunch.",Negative "This film is really cool. every thing looks like it came out of the comic book. the sets, the costumes, and the plot is great. Clark Bartram is again our favorite batman. he looked a bit better in dead end, but he still pulls it off. superman is great too. the flying effects are OK. but its a fan-film so we cant expect them to be the greatest. the shot with superman catching the car was VERY believable. it was cool. This is a movie i would definitely see if it were real. its got every thing you would want in a batman/ superman movie. one exception though, i would cast the joker instead of 2-face..... overall i give this film a 10 because its a great film.",Positive "Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor.

Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No!",Negative "That's the question you have to ask yourself when you watch this movie ""What was the point?"" This movie was nothing but an hour and a half of confusion with completely unlikable people (not going to use the word actors) and a script that you could tell didn't exist.

One of the things that made me laugh the most about this movie was how it said ""Victorian story written by"" which means that there was actually a script to that part of the story. The entire victorian section had no dialogue, and was just comprised of shots of a guy staring at a girl and vice versa. Making that part of the movie as scripted as a camera left on at a train station.

OK, time for the story. It starts out with a guy sitting in a chair never once getting out of it. Oh blocking, who needs you? These newspeople come to his house and practically beg him to tell this story about these dead girls. So he starts off the story in Victorian times. and here's how the scene goes (Guy and girl are in a field. pretty music starts to play) (guy stares at girl) (girl stares at guy) (guy stares at girl) cut back to movie. That's pretty much all that happens for about half the movie.

The rest of the film is incredibly awkward dialogue about a bunch of models wanting to buy an apartment. So this real estate agent shows them one and when i say the dialogue is awkward i mean, if it were a dancer it would trip during the MACARENA. None of the characters in this movie are likable. The models are incredibly irritating, the victorian people don't talk, and the guy telling the story has the personality of a sack of onions. So eventually all the girls get killed off. and by killed off, i mean drug offscreen. ooh. you showed ONE death? and by death i mean holding her face till they put the blood makeup on? awesome.

HOW this guy even knows this story baffles me. He says it's because he saw it. but how? there was no guy in that apartment! the door was locked shut with no way out, the windows were attached to a fire escape that was too rotten to work, how the HELL did he see all that? Oh plot holes. we DO love you. So the movie finishes up with the newswoman saying ""i think you made it up. you're wasting our time"" despite the fact that she begged him for the interview in the first place. Whatever. This movie was stupid, pointless, and made no sense with a lot of plot holes. I could go on and on about this movie, but i don't see the need. i'd much rather spend my time doing something uselful. Like widdle something. ""Hell's Threshold"" more belongs in purgatory with 2 dumb models. out of 10.",Negative "This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date (""The Trip"", ""Joy Ride"", ""Jeepers Creepers"") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended.",Positive "There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.

As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?

Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.

I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with ""Sailor Who Fell from Grace"" and ""Manos"" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.

I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.",Negative "This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her ""fighting"" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.",Negative "I remember watching ""Gung Ho"" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.

Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.

I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have ""the best of both worlds."" And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too.",Positive "When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's ""Scream"". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as ""hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies"" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of ""hip parody"" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video ""Cut"".

Like most of the other ""new"" slasher flicks, ""Cut"" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film ""Hot Blooded"", to make its commentary on the genre. ""Hot Blooded"" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, ""Scarman"" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the ""new"" director is revealed to be the daughter of ""Hot Blooded""'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on ""Hot Blooded""), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. ""Cut""'s climax has no big ""who dunnit"" unmasking of the killer like in the ""Scream"" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the ""Urban Legend"" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a ""this way we can write a sequel if it sells well"" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this ""quality"" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.",Positive "Clearly an hilarious movie.

It angers me to see the poor ratings given to this piece of comic genius

Please look at this for what it is, a funny, ridiculous enjoyable film. Laugh for christ sake!

",Positive "Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.

This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.

As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.",Negative "Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's ""To Please A Lady"" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes (""I'll do anything to save my husband""). Does she or doesn't she??.

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western ""Naked Spur"" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama ""Paths Of Glory"" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's ""Kiss Me Deadly"" in 1955. His performance in ""Jeopardy"" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release ""Jeopardy"" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of ""Jeopardy"" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!",Positive "Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and – on top of that – it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended.",Negative "Christopher Guest need not worry, his supreme hold on the Mockumentary sub-genre is not in trouble of being upstaged in the least especially not by this extremely unfunny jab at RPG-gamers. The jokes are beyond lame. Not enough substance to last the typical length of a (particularly rancid) SNL skit, much less the 87 atrocious minutes I waisted watching this drivel. The great William Katt (Greatest American Hero, House) deserves much MUCH better. One thing and one thing alone makes the fact that I saw this worth it in my mind and that's posting about it on here so hopefully just hopefully I'll save someone such a bad experience.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: 2 Audio commentaries; 7 interviews with various cast members; 4 deleted scenes; & theatrical trailer

DVD-Rom extras: 2 Wallpapers

Easter egg: Highlight the eye in the picture on the main menu for a short scene",Negative "this movie is ok if you like mindless action ,corny acting, and a very small plot !The special effects are decent considering this movie is from the director of""Event Horizon"". The costumes are like something from a mad max movie .None of the soldiers talk ,so others tell them what to do.It eventually end up as a big shoot'em up movie with explosions all the place. I personally liked Russell better in ""tango and cash""""escape from la/new york"" and ""executive decision"". It must see this movie leave your mind at the door for a no brainer action science fiction movie!!",Positive "People are being too hard on the film. Sometimes we should just sit back and enjoy the story without attempting to ""review"" it.

The whole thing comes together when Hackman decides not to pull the trigger but his target still goes down. Then the fun begins as everyone about him also ""go down"".

Just think JFK and all the people associated in any way with his assassination, who's lives ended abruptly and in questionable ways and you'll appreciate what is implied in this film.

I think it's an excellent interpretation of what may well have occurred. Though the EXACT story line my not have been followed (hindsight here after reading Jim Maars ""Crossfire"") but it's what is implied that is of interest.

I'd love to get a copy of it to view it again. In light of what is known today, The Domino Principle is right on.",Positive "Ok, so it may not be the award-winning ""movie of the year"" type-film (apart from the brilliant soundtrack that I think won a few awards), but it is a really great film about 'The Kid' (Prince / O( take your pick) and the happenings around him living in Minneapolis, playing his music. The music is absolutely superb, in my opinion you HAVE to own this soundtrack, it is truly a classic and sums up the eighties sounds and feel in a wonderful fashion. And the movie itself plays out a nice plot, it's worth seeing over and over again, espeically if you like Prince / O (which I do) of course.",Positive "There is so much that can be said about this film. It is not your typical nunsploitation. Of course, there is nudity and sex with nuns, but that is almost incidental to the story.

It is set in 15th Century Italy, at the time of the martyrdom of 800 Christians at Otranto. The battle between the Muslims and the Christians takes up a good part of the film. It was interesting when everyone was running from the Muslim hoards, that the mother superior would ask, ""Why do you fear the Muslims,; they will not do anything that the Christians have done to you?"" Certainly, there was enough torture on both sides.

Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) is sent to a convent for defying her father. In the process, she witnesses and endures many things: the gelding of a stallion, the rape of a local woman by a new Duke, the torture of a nun who was overcome during a visit by the Tarantula Sect, and a whipping herself when she ran off with a Jew. The torture was particularly gruesome with hot wax being poured on the nun, and her nipples cut off.

Sister Flavia is bound to continue to get into trouble as she questions the male-dominated society in which she lives. She even asks Jesus, why the father, son and holy ghost are all men.

Eventually, she joins the leader of the Muslims as his lover and they sack the convent. Here is where you see more flesh than you can possible enjoy at one time. But, tragedy is to come. She manages to exact sweet revenge on all, including the Duke and her father, but finds that the Muslim lover treats her exactly the same. She is a woman and that is all there is to it.

I won't describe what the holy men of the church did to this heretic at the end, but it predates the torture of Saw or Hostel by decades.

Nunsploitation fans will be satisfied with the treats, but movie lovers will find plenty of meat to digest.",Positive "Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.",Negative "I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.",Negative "This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, ""What the hell is this?"" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.",Negative "All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.

After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..

I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..",Negative "Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become ""Alias Smith and Jones"". Mr. Wayne becomes ""John Jones"". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be ""Rev. Smith"", but Wayne calls him ""Dr. Smith"". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in ""Our Gang"", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.",Negative "This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...

What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....

What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.

So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans....",Positive "This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw ""real"" feeling of the film that makes it.",Positive "Jean Rollin artistic nonsense about vampires, aliens and the quest for immortality.

The women are beautiful and the photography stunning. The dialog is inane. Its a laughable mess. Great to look at but as any semblance of a horror film or thriller purely awful. I'm trying to figure out if we're suppose to be scared or not. At the same time is it a put on or not? Its an odd mix of art film and horror that never quite meshes and while its nice to look at it never seems to ""mean"" anything, and its by no means scary even if the occasional shot or sequence creates a moment of frisson Its well made pretentious twaddle. Something to leave on in the background as a living wall paper for those who like naked women.",Negative "Henry Sala's ""Nightmare Weekend"" is a rotten piece of sludge from Troma.This is a juvenile,sloppy and stupid low-budget horror film about some teenage girls spending the weekend at a mansion.The professor's evil assistant lures the girls into a bizarre scheme to perform hideous experiments.Using a brain implant she transforms her victims and their dates into zombies.""Nightmare Weekend"" is a completely braindead piece of garbage that features lots of nudity and some cheesy gore,not to mention a laughable musical score.The acting is horrendous and the script is utterly incoherent.Why such piece of crap is widely distributed is beyond me.Avoid it like the plague.1 out of 10.",Negative "- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was ""The Twilight Zone"". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes.

- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting.

- My Verdict: Do not watch.",Negative "Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order!",Positive "I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie.

Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.

Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.",Negative "As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the ""weighted average"" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a ""one"". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled ""Alien Intruder"". It does involve space and even an ""alien"" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.

There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.

The ""plot"" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.

For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of ""Where's Ariel?"", ""Can't find Ariel"" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...

Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on ""how to act in despair"" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.

The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.

It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.

Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.

I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.

1/10",Negative "Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns.",Positive "TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!!",Negative "I saw this movie not knowing anything about it before hand. The plot was terrible with large gaps of information missing. The movie didn't have the ""battle of wits"" feel to me. The actors just spewed out mouthful's of nonsense, at times causing me to gnash my teeth in agony as they droned on and on. The plot was predictable except for the stomach sickening homo erotic scene at the end (I'm not homophobic but made me physically sick to my stomach), even the ending was predictable. And you could tell the detective was Jude Law in a costume, everything from the fake accent, terrible dental work, costume shop facial hair, everything pointed to it being a disguise. The whole movie just felt like wasted time out of my life. This movie had the feel of a puppet show with Jude Law and Michael Caine as puppets and the house as the window to view the show, really boooring in my opinion.",Negative "Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)",Positive "I think they really let the quality of the DVD production get away from them. I rented this DVD from 2 movie stores and the second time I finally got it to play on the 3rd DVD player I tried.

Anyone else have this issue? It's really hard to give the film an un-biased review after going through such a hassle to play it. For one, I've never seen a Finnish horror film before so I was sort of bummed that the movie was done in English. Also since it's never made clear what is wrong with Sarah, she just came off as retarded and therefore I really just hoped someone would shoot her in the face and make all the horrific happenings go away.",Negative "Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!",Negative "Titanic is a classic. I was really surprised that this movie didn't have a solid ten, overall in the IMDb user rankings. Maybe, it's just cool to not give Titanic credit nowadays, but when it was first made it was really something. When the movie came out people flocked to the theaters. When it came out on video my sister and i would watch it twice a day for a month. It was safe to say we were obsessed and for good reason. Some of the disaster scenes were hard to forgot, like the frozen baby, or the guy who committed suicide after killing someone in the unruly crowd. Many people died on that ship, and to convey that on film with the immediacy and emotion it needed is a hard challenge that James Cameron stepped up to. And let's not forget the amazing romance between Jack and Rose. Whether or not their relationship was a figment of someone's imagination it was lovely. They barely knew each other, but they would die for each other. They trusted each other. They sure as hell are giving Romeo and Juliet a run for their money. ""I'll never let go, Jack."" Titanic is a great film down to it's very core. It is a powerful story told through brilliant acting, excellent cinematography, beautiful music, and a crew full of hard and dedicated workers. It really blows my mind when someone says they hate this movie.",Positive "I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.

All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.

A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon.",Positive "With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it.",Positive "I teach Japanese for an online high school and I include cultural activities so that the students can learn about the country as well as the language. And watching ""Gung Ho"" is one of the requirements. The students can either buy or rent the movie. Stereotypes or not, this helps the students to see that other people view the world and their lives differently than we do. Many of my students have told me that they enjoyed the movie so much, they are going to get a copy for themselves. It is really interesting to see what we value in this culture and what they value in their culture. I just wish I could get a cleaned-up TV version. I'm not really into the crude language the auto workers use all the time.",Positive "I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1",Positive "Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only ""The Optimists of Nine Elms"" and ""Being There"" have impressed me of those I have seen.

That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see ""Carlton Browne"" and ""Heavens Above!"" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, ""There's a Girl in My Soup"" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.

Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing ""charm"" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in ""Lolita"".

There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a ""vehicle"" for Sellers' undisputed talents.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****",Negative "---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.

Jane",Negative "When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like ""Buck Rogers in the 25th Century"" and ""Silver Spoons"" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.

Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.

The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.

The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.",Negative "I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 8 years old and it still cracks me up. The Muppets are so cool and they approach show business in a refreshingly naive way. My favorite scene is when the rats start a whispering campaign on behalf of Kermit at a fancy restaurant. This is one smart and funny movie for kids and parents alike. Long live Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of the gang.",Positive "Ever since the cinema-loving universe made acquaintance with a guy named George A. Romero, the word ""zombie"" automatically gets associated with blood-soaked horror images and non-stop acting sequences. It's safe to say that his ""Night of the Living Dead"" formed the zombie movie as we know it now. Yet, in the earliest years of cinema, the premise of reanimated corpses was merely used in slow, nearly action-less psychological thrillers. Jacques Tourneur's ""I walked with a Zombie"" is a perfect example and so is ""White Zombie"", starring Bela Lugosi. This ""Revolt of the Zombies"" could have been another example but unfortunately it's a failure over the entire line and easily one of the most tedious movies I ever saw. Dreadful acting, a very poorly written screenplay and a complete lack of atmosphere and tension! The film only lasts 65 minutes and yet the first half hour is entirely wasted on stupid love-story intrigues and unexciting monologues. The setting in the legendary Cambodian city of Angkor surely could have resulted in a more compelling story but all we ever see are interior shots. The lead actress (Dorothy Stone, textbook blonde with curly hair and an ugly nose) irritated me enormously and I kept hoping a ravenous undead would suddenly appear out of nowhere to devour her. Unlucky again…. If you manage to struggle yourself through 60 soporific minutes, you'll be rewarded with a fairly decent finale. Still, this is far too little to give this film a positive rating, let alone a recommendation. Avoid! This is the type of movie you should only see in case you already saw everything else.",Negative "A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his ""prisoner"". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province.",Positive "I knew I was going to see this when I saw the first preview. Dennis Quaid was one reason, but the theme of holding on to your dreams speaks to me. People talk about this as a movie for kids, but I think it's a movie for baby boomers who are coming to terms with aging, infirm parents, our own mortality, our kids growing up and leaving us, and all the other things we never thought would happen to us.

The movie doesn't fall into the trap of tragedy; it's about what living your dreams means when you have a real life.

Quaid is too small for a pitcher but he makes it look good, and Rachel Griffiths makes a small part as the wife into a thoughtful, layered performance. The camera-work is slow and sweet. When they put this movie together, they left out anything that wasn't necessary. Very nice.",Positive "how can you take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with *that* accent? It's absurd. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky, the plot is a shallow, boring, confused gangster-movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. The film ever shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says ""that didn't really happen, this happened"" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies'. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?

Terrible choice in casting, a convoluted, messy plot and a headache-inducing directorial style. 1/5.",Negative "Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.

Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC ""collapsed out of light's way"", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it.",Positive "This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous ""elephant's graveyard"". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.",Positive "Indeed: drug use, warehouse shoot-'em-ups, 'Matrix'-esque bullet dodging, a futuristic city with a mix of Asian races, and a lonely vampire --all in the same movie-- seems like a story that could only be envisioned by a Japanese pop/rock star. And that is exactly what 'Moon Child' is, and more. While all these elements combined may sound like the perfect subject for a campy B-movie of the week, 'Moon Child' pulls it off with but a few expected bumps and hitches along the way.

The film has a gritty, definitely independent feel to it, jumping from one scene to the next not in smooth transition, but rather sporadic leaps and bounds, giving glimpses into the characters' lives and barely scraping at a true plot. But the film makes no excuses, instead turning the story into one of friendship, love, trust, and betrayal all sugar-coated in the aforementioned elements of a futuristic society, warring gangsters, and vampires.

HYDE as the somber vampire 'Kei' is excellent, giving depth to the character and balancing-out the overly-zealous acting of Gackt as 'Sho,' an orphan who befriends Kei. Lee-Hom Wang also shines as the vengeful 'Son' who becomes friends with a grown-up Sho. The story revolves around these characters and their extended friends and family through different periods in their lives, and how simple friendship can so easily be turned into grief and betrayal.

While the action at times is all-too unrealistic and special effects appear just to show-off, one thing the film never does is presume to be about the immensely popular Asian singers it features. The superstars as actors have their flaws, and so do their characters. The movie rarely gets boring, and ends where it should, after jumping about quite a bit. 'Moon Child' is rather enjoyable, humorous at times, and even very touching: it is definitely worth your time!",Positive "I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. When I think about it, I only remember it vaguely. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember vaguely are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.",Positive "I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!!",Positive "I've barely just made it through one episode (""Crouch End""). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of ""Nightmares and Dreamscapes"" on par with the NBC's Hercules.",Negative "I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't ""get any,"" needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being ""so-bad-it's-good."" Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.",Negative "This ""tragicomedy"" written by famous Serbian theatre/film writer Dusan Kovacevic is probably one of the best movies ever made in the comedy category. And yet, its appearance of a theatre play transformed into a feature film takes nothing of its value. A masterpiece one should not miss to see (preferably with subtitles, and not dubbed).

In an aged bus en route to capital Belgrade, a looming war decides the passengers' behaviour. Two Gypsy musicians sing of their miserable life but also foresee a tragedy to come; their singing both divides and connects stages in this extraordinary road movie (real life Kostic brothers are amateur actors, but together with Stanojlo Milinkovic as farmer who's plowed the road give a real-life performance).

The spectrum of characters gives a brilliant image of a society facing a war, an insight into nation's collective person: everyone is aware that war is just about to begin but they try to live their own lives the best they can, hoping that ignorance might avert the tragedy. Using a simple movie language, director Slobodan Sijan paints a picture of society torn by previous war (World War I), but also highlights personal portraits with success: provincialism of a singer, inexperience of the newlyweds, seriousness of the Great War veteran who is on way to visit his recently conscripted son, and gloomy predictions from a man who seems to be a German spy.

Brilliant in its narration, with memorable soundtrack (especialy the Gispsy songs) and adjusted atmosphere, well photographed and edited, this feature (Sijan's feature debut) was only an introduction into a series of the directors bitter-sweet comedies that will define Serbian cinematography of the 1980s: ""Maratonci trce pocasni krug"", ""Kako sam sistematski unisten od idiota"", and my other director's favourite ""Davitelj protiv davitelja"").",Positive "I find this movie very enjoyable. The plot is simple and easily digestible, the humour is light and clean, and because the storyline involving mistaken identity is quite common, I find myself looking forward to how this movie flesh this story out. Turns out to be very nice. The performance of the female lead is admirable; her portrayal of an innocent, naive girl trying to fabricate some white lies to David's sophisticated role was very charming. I also find Vera's dancing very, very well done. I find myself drawn to her toes as she pranced about the stage effortlessly and flawlessly.

For those who have had enough of profanity-filled movies of today, you will enjoy this movie thoroughly.",Positive "Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live ""Evil dead II"".",Negative """I Am Curious: Yellow"" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) ""double-standard"" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.",Negative "Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.",Positive "Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).

The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.

While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.",Negative "I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read ""Our Sunshine"". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...

Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent ""Secret History of the Kelly Gang"". 4/10",Negative "Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.",Positive "I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and ""modern"" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those ""way-out gizmos"".

If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.",Negative "Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit ""chatty"" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film ""Bright Victory"", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area!",Positive This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see!,Positive "This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac.",Negative "One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, ""Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes.."" Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile.",Positive "Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like ""Sling Blade"", ""A Simple Plan"" and ""The Man Who Wasn't There"" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: ""Knock Knock"", ""Who's there?"", ""The big stinking man"", ""The big stinking man who?"", ""The big stinking man - is YOU!"". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like ""The Fast and the Furious"" and not a ""no-budget"" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.",Negative Not a bad martial arts film. Fight scenes were good. Michel Qissi did a good job directing his first film without Van Damme. Story worked without foul language and too much blood. Screenwriter Jeanette Francessca has a good line to the story that works. IT would be great to see something else from her in the same genre. She likes the art and having strong women promenant. IT was definitely worth watching. I recommend the film to all drama and martial arts lovers.,Positive "This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem ""Beowulf,"" avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it.",Negative "One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: ""It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?"" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie ""The World Famous Singer"" and Little Edie "" The World Famous Dancer.""",Positive "On the eighth day God created Georges. But the same as an eighth day doesn't fit into the week, Georges doesn't fit into the modern world: He has Down syndrome and is therefore marginalized by society, shunted off to an asylum after his mother's death four years ago. She was the only one who loved him.

Harry is another man that isn't loved anymore. His wife has left him, for reasons that she is unable to explain. He loses the love of his daughters, too, when he arrives too late at the railway station to collect the two kids, who wanted to spend the weekend with their father.

Harry is a highly ranked businessman. He knows all the rules that enable us to succeed in our modern meritocracy. But he has entered a state of crisis, which reaches a climax after the loss of the love of his daughters. He questions the sense of his life, without obtaining any definite results.

Harry and Georges meet. At first Harry tries to get rid of Georges, the same as all the others do. But Georges can't be shaken off. And it gradually dawns on Harry, how much he needs Georges, if he wants to get over his identity crisis. It is Georges who opens a new access to the world for him and who makes him view his life with different eyes. Friendship and human warmth take the place of calculating striving for success. It is no surprise that Harry now cannot avoid failing in his job.

Georges helps Harry to regain the recognition of the daughters. Even his wife has to admit that the fireworks which he organized were worth seeing. Nonetheless a reintegration into the old life is no longer possible. And the new one turns out to be nothing more than a dream with a time limit, which unstoppably will reach its end. The camera watches Harry and Georges from above, for one long minute, as they are both lying down in the grass, just savoring the moment. But the same as this minute will unavoidably go by, the friendship of the two men, which came into being in such a wondrous fashion, will not be long-lasting. Georges is destroyed by the impossibility of love to the opposite sex and can see no other way out but to commit suicide. Harry turns into a city tramp, who asks the car drivers that are waiting in front of the traffic lights for charity.

The movie describes modern meritocracy as a disastrous mechanism which devours positive values such as human warmheartedness or friendship. It is Georges, the mongol, who seems to be capable of showing the way out of the dilemma, but unfortunately his plea comes to a bad end. However, his failure does not necessarily have to mean that it is impossible or not desirable to reach the aspired goal. The way he shows us is surely passable, although it requires a huge amount of willpower and, above all, the courage to apply a radical nonconformism.",Positive "Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?

They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.

Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.",Negative "As I watched this movie I began to feel very nostalgic. As a child growing up in a rural area I felt as if I was a kid again! The swimming pond (it's called a ""tank"" in Central Texas), the running through the countryside like a wild free spirit! The story was very believable and I totally lost it and cried toward the end. Through the pain we go through in life...life goes on and there can be forgiveness.",Positive "With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.",Negative "It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies.",Negative "This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.",Negative "I took part in a little mini production of this when I was a bout 8 at school and my mum bought the video for me. I've loved it ever since!! When I was younger, it was the songs and spectacular dance sequences that I enjoyed but since I've watched it when I got older, I appreciate more the fantastic acting and character portrayal. Oliver Reed and Ron Moody were brilliant. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bill Sykes or Fagin. Shani Wallis' Nancy if the best character for me. She put up with so much for those boys, I think she's such a strong character and her final scene when... Well, you know... Always makes me cry! Best musical in my opinion of all time. It's lasted all this time, it will live on for many more years to come! 11/10!!",Positive "Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.

These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.

The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital.",Positive "It's a strange, yet somehow impressive story, about love. Personnaly, I never run over such a twist-off story in real life. But, I can image there is.

It's a story that promises to be ""sick"" from the title. But, after I watch it, I didn't get this feeling of ""sickness"" which I would surely have regarding society rules. It's something beautiful in this movie... something impressive...which I cannot contradict using any moral or society rules.

The movie focuses mostly on relation between Kiki and Alex. You can see how this relation starts, evolves and finally ends. You feel the moment when this love blossoms, the first whispers, touchings. You feel the connection. And no moment I though this is immoral. You even hope it will not break in the end....it cannot break...it's not right. You feel the pain of being hart broken in the end...

But,I need also to add a negative spin to this comment...I don't know if the story is not somehow *showed* to give the feeling that these relations are sick only in form, but not in content. You don't have the total story, but only fragments. When movie has started, the relation between Kiki and Sandu was already in place. So, no clue about the nature of the relation. You feel only a tension between them...a fight between the need for love and desire to break this relation. I think this line of Kiki to Sandu says all: ""I want to stop...and if you love me, you will do as I ask you"".

This movie will probably stir some questions about what is love and what is to be moral...and where's the limit between them. I don't know if the idea of this movie is ""love conquers all...even social and moral standards"" or ""love is beautiful...no matter how or where"". But in my opinion, this movie is already a success for the simple reason that it makes you think...",Positive "I don't know why some guys from US, Georgia or even from Bulgaria have the courage to express feelings about something they don't understand at all. For those who did not watch this movie - watch it. Don't expect too much or don't put some frameworks just because this is Kosturica. Watch the movie without prejudice, try to understand the whole humor inside - people of Serbia DID actually getting married while Bil Clinton bomb their villages, gypsies in all Balkans are ALWAYS try to f*ck you up in any way they can, LOVE is always unexpected, pure and colorful, and Balkans are extremely creative. For those who claims this is a bad movie I can see only that the American's sh*t (like Meet Dave, Get Smart etc) are much much worse than a pure, frank Balkan humoristic love story movie as Promise me. The comment should be useful and on second place should represent the personal view of the writer. I think the movie is great and people watch it must give their respects to the director and story told inside. It is simple, but true. It is brutal, but gentle and makes you laugh to dead.",Positive "I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years.

Here's why:

Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, ""my heart takes flight,"" we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen.

This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.

I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.",Negative "i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it.",Negative "OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox.",Positive "Errol Flynn is ""Gentleman Jim"" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a ""shanty Irishman"" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.

This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.

The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.

Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar.",Positive "I have watched some pretty poor films in the past, but what the hell were they thinking of when they made this movie. Had the production crew turned into zombies when they came up with the idea of making it, because you sure have to be brain dead to find any enjoyment in it.

I am a fan of most genres and enjoy ""shoot 'em up"" games, but merging the daft scenes from the game just made this ridiculous and unwatchable.

As most have already said, there was hardly any script and the acting was weak. I won't waste my time describing it.

Anyone who rates this film above 4 has to be part of the production company or Sega, or else they have a very warped concept of entertainment.

I must say, I was more annoyed with the video shop, who gave this a thumbs up, which led me to rent it. Thank god I had a second film to watch to restore some of my faith in movies.

Comic book guy would be right if he said ""Worst movie ever""!",Negative "Wendigo is a pretty good psychological thriller, the film has some great drama between the characters and some good creepy scenes. The acting is good, the characters act like a normal family. The Wendigo effects are good, the Deer Form reminded me a little of the Rabbit in Donnie Darko.

The film sees a family going to stay at a house for a while but accidental hit a deer, a group of hunters arrives and one of the hunters named Otis starts to argue with the Dad George, after the car is lifted they drive off to the house. The Son Miles is a little shook up about the Deer but his Parents try to tell him that it's natural for things like that to happen. That night while he's in bed he starts to see weird things in bedroom, the next day they go into to town and Miles meets a man at the counter who gives him a little statue of the Wendigo, when Miles shows Kim the statue and tells her that a man at the counter gave it him the owner says the she only works there. Once returning home George takes his son sledding and while there sledding he's knocked off the board and Miles is chases by the wind, after gaining conciseness they go looking for George, they find him outside the house where he tells them he was shot, in the Hospital Kim tells the Sheriff that Otis may have shot him, the Shrieff goes to Otis's place where he's bashed over the head with a hammer, as Otis drives down the road he finds that the Wendigo is after him.

Wendigo is a pretty good thriller that has some chilling moments. Check this out. 10/10",Positive "As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next ""Pulp Fiction"". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.",Negative "This is one of the best made movies from 2002. Maybe it is not the best movie, but it looks the best, has great acting and is directed perfectly by Sam Mendes, who debuted with 'American Beauty'.

It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).

In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.

Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas.",Positive "How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than ""Mafia"" did for the criminal underground.",Positive "I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!""The Night Brings Charlie"" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out ""Madman"",""The Burning"",""The Prowler"",""Just Before Dawn"" or ""Humongous""- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.",Negative "An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.

First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others.

Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in.

Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.

What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.",Negative "Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.",Negative "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?

""Valentine"" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.

Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on ""Angel."" Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.

""Valentine"" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.

My score: 4 (out of 10)",Negative "My first question after seeing this film was, ""Why is the title LIAM?"" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a ""main"" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.

Melodrama is defined as: ""dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict"" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!

Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her ""No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!"" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.

",Negative "In any number of films, you can find Nicholas Cage as a strong, silent hero, Dennis Hopper as a homicidal maniac, Lara Flynn Boyle as a vamp/tramp, and the late, lamented J.T. Walsh as the heavy. These are the types of roles these four can play in their sleep, and they have done so often enough that to see them playing them again borders on cliche. What a relief, therefore, that John Dahl, a master at getting a lot of mood out of a little action, directed this nuanced noirish thriller. Hopper manages to keep from going over the top, Cage shows a little more depth than his usually-superficial action heroes, Boyle is by turns sultry, innocent, and scheming, and one gets a sense of the hard iron of the soul that is central to his character, Wayne. Dahl's direction gives a sense of the emptiness of the Big Sky country where the story takes place while also being intimate enough to show how a wrinkled brow can indicate a radical change of plot in store. The plot twists are top-notch, and one of the other great twists in this movie is that some of the supporting characters actually act as if they have brains. It isn't often that minor characters like deputy sheriffs have more brains than their headlining superiors. But with a director as smart as Dahl, you shouldn't be surprised by the intelligence of anything connected with this film. An excellent movie.",Positive "Simple-minded but good-natured drive-in movie about a simple-minded but good-natured high school graduate who has dreams of owning the coolest custom van in the world to use as his ""ballroom"".

Bobby, our hero, spends his entire savings to acquire the vehicle of his dreams. Joint sharing and love making quickly commence with girls Bobby has picked up at the local pizza parlor, but he finds out much responsibility, danger and heartache come with being the owner of such a mechanical marvel.

The Van is a guilty pleasure of mine. It captures the laid back mid 70's mood and has enough unintentional humor to put it into the ""so bad it's good"" category.",Positive "I watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a ""talk"" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed ""rocker"" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, ""HOW RUDE!"" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be ""cute"", is constantly saying ""DUH!"" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later.",Negative "Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.

Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with ""Gold Diggers of 1933"" and ""42nd Street"" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and ""rear-view"" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.

Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of ""prologues"" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.

The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, ""Honeymoon Hotel"", ""The Waterfall"", and ""Shanghai Lil"", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called ""special effects"" have replaced creative cinematography.

Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.",Positive "Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.

Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.

Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.

Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed.",Negative "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.

You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.

MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.

Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.

It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.

If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.

Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!",Negative "I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it.

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video?",Positive "Frankie Dio (Lee VanCleef) is a high-ranking mobster who turns himself in to the police or illegal gambling (for reasons that seem unclear to me). Tony (Tony Lo Bianco) is a low-level thug who frequents a pool hall and spends his free time envying Frankie. By being in the right place at the right time, Tony gets arrested with Frankie and is sent to jail... where they form a bond that may not quite be friendship, but it will do for now.

This film came to me under the title of ""Frank and Tony"", which is disappointing because I see an alternate name is ""Mean Frank and Crazy Tony"", which would have helped sell the film more effectively. I presume that's an homage to ""Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry"" but what do I know? I watched it shortly after another Italian crime film, ""Violent Professionals"", and I must say the two complement each other very well.

Italians have always lagged behind Americans in their budgets and production values, which is a real shame with this film. It is considered a ""grindhouse"" film, which unfairly demotes it to a b-movie (or worse). With a cleaner sound and picture, this could have been a Hollywood hit, I suspect. I found the story very interesting, the characters (and actors) better than average and unlike ""Violent Professionals"" the plot is fairly clear -- not too many secondary characters.

If you like Mafia movies or crime films you should give this one a try. A film about the mob that's actually from Italy (how much more authentic do you want?) is as much as you can ask. Sure, it's not ""The Godfather"", but it's not supposed to be. This isn't a drama, it's a light comedy, heavy action buddy film... like ""Die Hard With a Vengeance"" from the point of view of the bad guys. Well, okay, not really.

If nothing else, this film made me want to check out other films from the director and the principle cast. Films besides ""Escape From New York"" (where VanCleef plays ""Hauk"") and the usual cult movies. What's more fun than discovering a lost classic?",Positive "This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called ""blockbuster"" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression!",Positive "...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?",Negative "While most of the movie is very amateurish, the Kosher slaughter scene is played up, but not untrue. Kosher law says that an animal must be conscious when the blade touches it's skin. The Kosher slaughter scene is accurate as anyone knows who has seen one, or has seen the Peta film showing a Kosher slaughter, in which the animals throat is cut, and the esophagus cut out while it is still alive, conscious, and obviously suffering. We must remember that history is written by the victors. Is one even Allowed to even THINK that maybe the Nazis were right??

Doesn't it say anything that the Nazis had outlawed this vicious religious slaughter, and the Jews are still practicing it even today?",Negative "**SPOILER ALERT** W. Somerset Maugham classic on film about a love obsessed young man who's abused hurt and humiliated by the object of his obsession to the point of losing everything he has only to find true love in the end under the most unusual circumstances.

Leslie Howard plays the role of Philip Carey a sensitive young artiest in Paris trying to make a living by selling his paintings. Told by a local art expert that his work is not at all good enough to be sold to the art going public Philip decides to go back to his native England and study medicine and become a physician in order to help others.

Philip being born with a club foot is very hypersensitive about his awkward condition and makes up for that by being a very pleasant and friendly person. One afternoon Philip is at a local café with a fellow medical student and spots pretty waitress Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis, and immediately falls in love with her. Mildred at first rebuffs the love-sick Philip but later realizing just what a sap he is takes advantage of his feelings for her. Mildred has him spend himself into poverty buying her gifts and taking her out to the theater every time she off from work. Phlip also falls behind on his studies, by paying so much attention towards Mildred, at the medical university and fails his final exams.

Going into hock buying an engagement ring for Mildred in an attempt to ask for her hand in marriage the cold hearted Mildred tells the startled Philip that she's already engaged to be married to Emil Miller, Alan Hale. It turns out that he's one of the customers at the café that she's always flirting with.

Philip broke and heart-sick slowly get his life back together and later retakes his medical exam and passes it and at the same time finds a new love in Nora, Fay Johnson, a writer for a local love magazine. Later to Philip's shock and surprise Mildred walks back into his life.

Mildred telling Philip that her husband Emil, who's child she's carrying, threw her out of the house has the kind and understanding Philip take her back at the expense of Nora who was very much in love with him. It later turns out that Mildred wasn't married to Emil but had a child out of wedlock by having an illicit affair with him! Emil it turns out was already married.

As before Mildred takes advantage of Philip's kind heart for her and her baby daughter, where he supports them with food medical attention and shelter, to the point where he again goes broke and can't continue his studies ending with her leaving Philip; after having a very heated and emotional encounter with him. Out on the streets with nowhere to go Philip is taken in by Mr. Athanly, Reginald Owens, who he once treated at the hospital and falls in love with his daughter Sally, Frances Dee.

Later Philip has his club foot corrected at the medical center and with the help of Mr. Athenly gets back to being a doctor. It's then when he encounters Mildred again who's really at the end of her rope. Dying of tuberculosis and having lost her daughter she's all alone with no one to look after her. Philip now well to do and respected in medical circles does all he can to help the sick and poor Mildred but in the end she succumbed to her illness and passes away.

Mildred had the love and devotion in Philip all those years that he was in love with her but choose to abuse him and have affairs with man who were just like her, cold unfeeling and selfish. In the end Mildred got back just what she gave to the kind and sensitive Philip: She became both unloved and alone. Philip found in the sweet and caring Sally everything that Mildred wasn't and in the end also found the true love that he was looking for all of his life.",Positive This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's great and the acting is brilliant. In the scene in which Michael Caine calls the police in tears and then stops the waterworks the second he finishes the call really displays Caine's brilliance. The twists are a lot of fun. The film is top-notch.,Positive "I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.

In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.

As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. ""We aren't revolutionaries."" I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832.

At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.

The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully.

The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.

Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.

Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.",Negative "In this swimming pool, this pond, there are water lilies and there are frogs. Frogs sit on water lilies. The frog and water lily have a parasitic relationship. Marie(Pauline Acquart) is a water lily, a synchronized swimming groupie with a crush on Floraine(Adele Haenel), a frog, the captain of her team. Floraine's teammates shun their leader because the preternaturally curvy and well-proportioned blonde conveys a loose persona that betrays the syncrhronized swimmer's mindset of conformity and discipline. But Floraine has a secret; the bombshell has a bombshell, which ""Naissance des pieuvres"" reveals to the audience, visually, before she confides in Marie.

Floraine has never gone, as they say, all the way, with a boy.

At a party, we see a double-image of the burgeoning sex bomb checking her make-up in a bathroom mirror. ""Lolita"" is a fata morgana. Marie gets to know Floraine's double while her imitation breaks the water lily's heart. While the frog goes through the motions of catching flies for appearance's sake, she gets chummy with the water lily when no one's looking. In the film's most startling scene, the water lily agrees to give the frog a hand in losing her virginity through the mechanical act of oral stimulation. Floraine wants boys to like her, but she doesn't like boys, seemingly, but it's more important to the frog that she's popular. When the water lily finally kisses the frog, the frog remains a frog. The frog can't transform into a water lily, or a princess, because the water lily lost the frog's respect. After their lips unlock, Floraine tells Marie, ""See, it's easy,"" which is the frog's way of equating their kiss with the orgasm that her friend gave her as nothing more than a rite-of-passage without any strings attached. Floraine's beauty is a burden. She carries the weight of meeting boy's expectations. Florence uses Marie to have one final fling before her fata morgana subjugates its imitation into the closet.

The other water lily, the other frog, Marie's best friend Anne(Louise Blachere) and Floraine's frustrated boy-toy Francois(Warren Jacobs), just like any water lily and frog, have a parasitic relationship, too. While Floraine uses Marie for love, Francois uses Anne for sex. But that's life; that's the treachery of growing up, in which even a friend will turn on a good friend if the opportunity to move up the food chain presents itself. At a McDonalds, the water lily chastises the other water lily after bathing extensively in the frog's afterglow. Physical beauty is a currency. Marie gets to call the shots because Anne, although far from being ugly, is overweight and has an unflattering hairdo. Anne tries to fight back by using her breasts as ample retaliation(the magnifying glass from her Happy Meal incidentally comments on Marie's flat chest), but the tadpole(Marie thinks she's better than Anne, better than a water lily) points out that her breasts are a byproduct of fat.

Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other.

Later, in the final shot, ""Naissance des pieuvres"" suggests that Marie has a double, too, and this symbiosis among water lilies has the potential to turn parasitic in the near-future, if it not already has. Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other in a way that no boy could match.",Positive "Filmed in a documentary style, but you can pretty well tell participants had been coached. A recently divorced wannabe film maker(Myles Berkowitz)sees a chance to liven up his love life and step into the movie biz at the same time. He intends to make a documentary piece about finding love by filming twenty dates including ramifications. The comedy is spotty at best; the rest is mishap after mishap. Also taking part are Richard Arlook, Robert McKee and the enticing Elisabeth Wagner. Trying for credibility the fetching Tia Carrere is talked into a cameo. This will suffice as a handbook on how NOT to get a satisfactory date.",Negative "This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.

None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?

Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.

If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!

The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. ""Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing""...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.

And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say ""Duh?""

Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.

Rent it.",Negative "A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.

If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.

Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity.",Positive "This is just a butchering of a wonderful story by Edwin Torres. This movie doesn't follow the storyline in the book. And, there are so many inconsistencies with the original movie that you have to wonder if the screenwriter had even seen the first movie.

Al Pacino (the original and still the best Carlito) gets out of prison at the start of the original one. Here, Carlito retires with his woman in paradise.

What happened to Gail from Lorain, Ohio? In this installment, she isn't mentioned, and Carlito retires with and presumably will marry some other girl.

Also, where is Kleinfeld? I think he was in the first book.

I also like how Mr. Guzman plays a totally different character in this film. He was Pachanga back in the Pacino days. Now, he is Nacho Reyes, a killer from Cuba. I remember that Nacho Reyes had a much bigger role in the book.

It's been a while since I read the book, but where did Sean Comb's character come from? Also, I think this movie really glosses over the racial tensions in Harlem that Torres was writing about. And, the mob doesn't get the treatment that they did in the book. They are also wiped out in this movie. But, magically the Pleasant Avenue bunch is around for the second movie.

The book told a great story. This movie could have told a great story. This is just a huge disappointment. Read the book. It's a better use of your time.",Negative "Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their ""hot rod"" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the ""ghost"" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.",Negative "I almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much).

In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.",Negative "Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic … it's sappy … it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.

Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go … ""OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa."" Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.

As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.

With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of ""Silver Spoons"", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend … at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!!",Negative "Being that I am not a fan of Snoop Dogg, as an actor, that made me even more anxious to check out this flick. I remember he was interviewed on ""Jay Leno,"" and said that he turned down a role in the big-budget Adam Sandler comedy ""The Longest Yard"" to be in this film. So obviously, Snoop was on a serious mission to prove that he has acting chops. I'm not going to overpraise Snoop for his performance in ""The Tenants."" There are certainly better rapper/actors, like Mos Def, who could've done more with his role. But the point is Snoop did a ""good"" job. He can't seem to shake off some of his trademark body movements and vocal inflections, but that's something even Jack Nicholson has a problem doing. The point is I found him convincing in the role, and the tension between him and Dylan McDermott's character captivating. McDermott, by the way, gives the best performance in the film, though his subtle acting will most likely be overshadowed by Snoop's not-so-subtle acting. Being a big reader and aspiring writer myself, I couldn't help but find the characters and plot somewhat fascinating. It did aggravate me how Snoop's character would constantly ask McDermott to read his work, and berate him for criticizing it. But you know what? I'm sure a lot of writers are like that. His character was supposed to be flawed, as was McDermott's, in his own way. My only mild criticism of the film would be its ending. For some reason, it just felt too rushed for me, though the resolution certainly made sense and was motivated by the characters, rather than plot.",Positive "Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the ""Nightmare on Elm Street""-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the ""Elm Street"" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and – most of all – the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no… There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, ""Nightmare on Elm Street"" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. ""Freddy's Dead"", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it.",Negative "This film is a stunning piece that will convince even the most skeptical viewer that Gerard Depardieu is one of the finest film actors of the last 50 years. His performance shocks, entertains, disgusts and charms you while leaving you breathless. This film was shot in the very early days of his film career and is very raw, but still is able to convey the mastery of Depardieu. A must-see for any Depardieu fan and by far his best early work.",Positive "Great movie -I loved it. Great editing and use of the soundtrack. Captures the real feeling of Indian life, yet we can all relate. A well chose cast with some great characters. The movie develops all the characters so that you real care about them all and you feel like you know them. The use of the Indian music and drums in some of the soccer scenes is great and the direction really works as everyone comes off as real and natural. You just can't help but to root for Jess in this film! The acting was really good, even the tomboyish walk and body posture of both leading ladies is very convincing as a someone that played lots of soccer.",Positive "I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood.",Positive "After reading several comments, I felt I had to add in my two cents as well. ""Sorrow Lost"" is one of the most memorable shorts I think I have ever seen. I had gotten the chance to see this at the New York Independent Film Festival. I felt that this movie was incredibly beautiful and emotional. The story was beautifully complex - especially for such a short amount of time. The story is focused on a young girl who is victimized by her abusive father. She is soon given the choice to ""stop"" him by a demon played by ""Witchblade's Eric Etebari."" Having watched the show, I was amazingly impressed with how he played such unique and different character. I never knew he could act so well! His character was deeply complex and he was very persuasive. The acting was absolutely superb by him. The girl's was okay and the father's was decent. There is also death in this who follows the girl around until she is able to escape from her future. The effects and cinematography were absolutely mind blowing. I wonder if they had at least a hundred thousand budget for this. It is rare you get to see such a high quality short. The opening was absolutely breathtaking comparable with any major feature film. This isn't to say that it's not without its flaws - I thought it took a little to get going and the intro was a little long. But this stuck in my head days after watching it. There are very few shorts with this level of quality.",Positive "It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the ""sophisticated"", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.

I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.",Negative "I cannot get past the message of this movie. It's laid out much too clearly to ignore, and it is obscene because it has lost its sense of what it's about. I haven't read the novel, but Pollack's film opens with a scene at a CIA-front organization in New York, which is broken into by two professional assassins, headed by Max von Sydow, who proceed to brutally slaughter the half dozen quirky staff members we've come to know and understand. The staff include an elderly female receptionist, a fussy elderly professorial guy who's toupee falls off when he is machine-gunned (is that a joke?), and, last, the beautiful Tina Chen who looks up from the copier, realizes she is about to be murdered, and says, pitifully brave, ""I won't scream."" Von Sydow replies sympathetically, ""I know."" These murders are completely unexpected, savage, unmotivated by anything that we are aware of, and graphic. It is a brutal scene.

There is absolutely no way in which von Sydow and his henchman can be redeemed. And yet that is exactly what Pollack tries to do towards the end.

After having killed these innocent good guys, von Sydow switches sides (because the other side is willing to pay him) and assassinates the evil mastermind behind a complicated intramural CIA plot. The script then turns him into a perfectly reasonable, sensitive human being. ""It is better to live in Europe. Things are not so rushed."" Or whatever. I swear I'm not making this up. Pollack wants us to believe that it is better to be an honest mass murderer than a crooked bureaucrat. That's the message. You should write it down in case you forget. Just exactly what kind of psychiatric shambles do you have to be in order to turn ordinary values, not to mention common sense, upside-down like that? I understand that there are thoughtful adults who dislike the government of the United States, even hate it, and who see conspiracies just about everywhere, providing a knee-jerk explanation for otherwise unexplainable events. I know that people who think this way exist because I number some of them among my closer friends. Nevertheless, at some point this dislike, this hatred, if it increases in intensity, must pass beyond politics or ethics and into the realm of the psychiatric. I don't for a moment believe that a man who murders people for money is better than a sinister government official. I don't care how suave and cultured the murderer is or whether he knows how to reach the Louvre on the Metro. Whoever is purveying that message needs either medication or meditation.

I'd like to be able to argue that the production is as thoroughly rotten as its message, but I can't. It's quite well done. (In some ways that's worse, because it makes the film less dismissable.) Even New York City looks photogenic on the screen. And it's been a long time since I've thought of New York as photogenic. Robert Redford does an admirable job of projecting his character's initial shock and confusion, but then turns into a telecommunicational semi-genius. And, man, he looks just fine! His wardrobe is just right. Even his rimless glasses are becoming. And his peacoat. It's not everyone who can make a navy pea jacket look glamorous. He seems extremely handsome too, the swine. I want to look like that. I want to wear a denim shirt and a tie with such panache. Faye Dunaway is alright in her role but it's not too believable a role. Would anybody eagerly sleep with a guy who has just kidnapped her and is holding her at gunpoint? Even if he did look like Redford? Would anyone be emotionally wounded if, when this ambivalent relationship is about to end, Redford asked her not to tell anybody about what happened? Cliff Robertson is surprisingly good. He does one or two extremely good double-takes. The mailman is superb. The fight between him and Redford in a crowded apartment is exquisitely choreographed and, for once, we really don't know for sure how it will turn out, because Redford (a book reader after all) seems mismatched against the brute cunning of this hired assassin. This is one of John Housemann's final roles. A shame. He's a magnet on screen. And what an end to his life: a friend finds him lost, wandering the streets of New York, in a neighborhood he'd been familiar with for most of his life.

Yes, the movie is very well executed, but I can't ignore that vicious, paranoid message. I have the same problem with Leni Riefenstahl's ""Triumph of the Will."" Or her Olympic documentary in which the announcer is watching a foot race in which Jesse Owens is pulling into the lead and says ominously, ""This Negro is dangerous.""",Negative I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.,Negative "2003 was seen as the year of the Matrix, with the release of two sequels and a computer game that actually linked to the plot of the film. Also released was a DVD of 9 short animated films, most written and made in Japan and made as Anime. Japan makes some of the best animation in the world. Sadly most of these shorts are disappointing. The best of them is the first part of a prequel to the first Matrix film.

The Second Renaissance is made as a historical file. It tells how humans made machines in their own likeness. Humans live the high life whilst machines are the grunts, the workers of society, second class citizens. In the year 2090, a machine, BI-66ER was put of trial for murder, after killing his owners who wanted to deactivate him. The machine does not have a fair trial and riots start around the world. The governments of the world order to dismantle machines. Many machines leave human society and form their own country in the Middle East, O1. 01 has a productive economy and easily undercut the human nations, forcing them into economic crisis. The human blockade 01 and reject the machines requests for peace, thereby it was the humans who were responsible for the war that enslaves them.

The Second Renaissance is a interesting watch, with excellent, traditional animation style and sets a compelling world. It shows how the machines were mistreated and that humanity sowed the seeds of their own destruction. There is a political and social world and the short tells a lot in it short running time. The short shares themes and a style to the classic silent film Metropolis, partly the beginning with the underworld. They are the themes of slavery, the mistreatment of the working class and racism. The short also has some religious themes and religious iconography. Mainly that men saw themselves as God and created the machines in their own likeness. Seeing themselves as the rightful masters of the machines. The machines too use religious iconography, mainly forming their nation in 'cradle of human civilisation' and the machines coming to the United Nations dressed as Adam and Eve, offering an apple.

The animation style is beautiful, done in the traditional anime style (like Akira). The set designs are great, combine futuristic with historic cities, e.g. Washington D.C.. There is well down future scene, and surprising violence, which is key to the film. The director, Mahiro Maeda, also directed the anime sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1, so has good credentials to Hollywood. He is willing to use violence and know how to keep a story going.

The only real complain is a continuity error to the first Matrix film because Morpheus mentions that the humans have no historical records or know who started the war. But its a good watch.",Positive "Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended.",Positive "I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived ""thriller."" A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.",Negative "Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, ""I bet this guy is really like this in real life."" Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum ""lite"" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.",Positive "DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)

Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.",Negative "Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.",Negative "i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''

please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates",Negative "Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. ""Historical fiction"" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.

Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.

Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist.",Negative "Oh dear. While Chevy Chase and the gang at SNL set new highs with the sketch show format this fails miserably at every level. Fortunately Chevy is barely in this at all and can't be blamed for this utter tripe. It seriously is very, very bad. While meant to be a political comment on USA at the time of it's release (1974) it still remains neither funny or acutely observed. The sketches are all way too long and any satirical impact they may have had is lost as they're all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. This is credited as Chevy's movie debut and I'm pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. Avoid even if curious.",Negative "Post-feminist depiction of cruelty and sadism.

Spoiler alert!

This underrated gem of a film tells the story of Flavia, a Fifteenth Century girl of Noble birth walled up in a convent after defining her father and indeed the whole of Medieval Christian society by viewing a fallen Islamic warrior as a human rather than demonic figure.

Unable to accept the patriarchal rule of the convent (explicitly stated in a scene where the Bishop arrives flanked by soldiers and monks) Flavia begins to explicitly question the society in which she finds herself and, through butting up against a whole system of subjugation, repression and violence, inevitably brings a tragic end not only to herself but all those around her.

Billed as a piece of nunsploitation this is far from the truth. This is a film depiction the consequences of violence, the effects of patriarchal dominance, the nature of rebellion and the corruption of the human spirit.

I described it in the title of this piece as 'post-feminist' and in the end Flavia's triumphs must always be corrupted, compromised and perverted by men. Even Flavia's gruesome end is perpetrated by men for men (the women turn away and only the monks look on without horror.

As to the much discussed violence: this is a depiction of the effects of violence and the horrors of a world driven mad by religious excess. To have shied away from the violence would have limited the film's impact, would have cheapened the film and allowed it to be assimilated within the Patriarchal discourse it is exposing. In addition it is a realistic portrait of medieval society.

Beautifully filmed, brilliantly acted (notably by Florinda Bolkin and Maria Casares), containing a wonderful score by piovani and still challenging after all these years Flavia is a classic of European Cinema.",Positive "I'll come clean. The only reason I even found out about this DVD was because Dominic Monaghan is a favorite actor of mine. When I heard the title of the film, I thought it was going to be...different, perhaps in not such a good way.

But I was wrong. After reading what few reviews were out there about this short, I was actually excited about seeing it. I sent off for my copy as soon as able and received it a few weeks later. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.

The film follows Jack, a insomniac who is often plagued by conditions which causes him to doubt what is reality, and what is all in his head. I won't give away what happens, but I will tell you that the film can sometimes be frightening in it's realism.

The directing is fantastic, focusing on what is essential to the story without allowing it to lose any entertainment or thought-provoking moments.

All in all, I give this great film 9 out of 10, for going far beyond what I thought any short could achieve.",Positive "Greetings again from the darkness. How rare it is for a film to examine the lost soul of men in pain. Adam Sandler stars as Charlie, a man who lost his family in the 9/11 tragedy, and has since lost his career, his reason to live and arguably, his sanity. Don Cheadle co-stars as Sandler's former Dental School roommate who appears to have the perfect life (that Sandler apparently had prior to 9/11).

Of course the parallels in these men's lives are obvious, but it is actually refreshing to see men's feelings on display in a movie ... feelings other than lust and revenge, that is. Watching how they actually help each other by just being there is painful and heartfelt. Writer/Director Mike Binder (""The Upside of Anger"", and Sandler's accountant in this film) really brings a different look and feel to the film. Some of the scenes don't work as well as others, but overall it is well written and solidly directed.

Sandler and Cheadle are both excellent. Sandler's character reminds a bit of his fine performance in ""Punch Drunk Love"", but here he brings much more depth. Cheadle is always fine and does a nice job of expressing the burden he carries ... just by watching him work a jigsaw puzzle.

Support work is excellent by Jada Pinkett Smith (as Cheadle's wife), Liv Tyler (as a very patient psychiatrist), Saffron Burrows (in an oddly appealing role), Donald Sutherland as an irritated judge and Melinda Dillon and Robert Klein as Sandler's in-laws.

The film really touches on how the tragic events of that day affected one man so deeply that he is basically ruined. In addition to the interesting story and some great shots of NYC, you have to love any film that features vocals from Chrissy Hynde, Bruce Springsteen and Roger Daltrey ... as well as Eddie Vedder impersonating Daltrey. Not exactly a chipper upbeat film, but it is a quality film with an unusual story.",Positive """Iowa"" wants to be ""Requiem for a Dream"" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated ""Reefer Madness"".

Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone.

While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in ""The Rocky Horror Picture Show"". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on ""The O.C."". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a ""Badlands""-type couple.

The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's ""The Pretender"", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa?

With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy.

While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.

The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.

I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.",Negative "This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!

3/10 just horrible

-adam",Negative "My first review of 2010 is ""Into The Blue 2: The Reef"". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.

Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.

The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.

However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax.",Negative "This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to ""Blainsworth"" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.

It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.

Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house.",Positive "This is Not a Love Song.

My one word summary of this film would be `Excellent'.

It probably won't appeal to the mass movie watching public – it's a

film that forces you to participate. You observe, think, and question.

Comparisons could be made with Deliverance (Topic/Theme) and

perhaps with The Blair Witch Project for overall filming style.

However this film stands unique against both.

The cinematography effects (solarisation, freeze frame, blur etc)

have been seen before but they are used most effectively in this

film to underpin the natural tension of the story.

Acting is raw, menacing and utterly believable.

The real theme of the film is about friendship; the title really gives

the game away. It's probably not the kind of friendship that most of

us have experienced or indeed would want to.

It is a love song.",Positive "The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.",Positive "While I loved this movie, the trailers that circulated the internet the year before it hit theaters set my expectations a bit high.

I own the DVD, so don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't watch it or even buy it! It's just that I still think the first scene was the best, and nothing throughout the entire movie ever topped it.",Positive "The one thing that occurred to me after watching this drivel, was i would never get the time I used to watch this, back again. If you want to see Stacey keach and Michael dorn try and earn what must have been then, the down payments on a holiday home then stay tuned. Wooden acting, poor special effects, the only comedic highlight was whilst our alien hero was in female form and this is over as soon as she has done her obligatory b-movie nude sex scene within 30 mins into the movie. The opportunity to have made what could have been a decent movie disappears the moment Nicole Eggbert clocks the alien in a bar within 30 seconds, whilst the Police, Military and Joe public don't cotton on that the woman drinking coffee, dosn't use the cup handle and wears four jumpers at once. She must obviously be from another planet. Just where I wish I was when this movie was on.",Negative "Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call ""period pieces"". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003).",Positive "This movie is one of my all time favorites. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr...what a cast. Not to mention Sam Jaffe as Gunga Din. Drama, action, adventure and comedy all rolled up into one. The final battle scene still to this day gives me chills and the ending always leaves me in tears. If you haven't seen it, I'd strongly recommend it.",Positive "Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun.",Negative "The main problem with the documentary ""Czech Dream"" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.

In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word ""inspired"" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony ""hypermarket"" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many ""dopes"" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.

One might well ask, ""Why do such a thing?"" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the ""real"" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of ""research"" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.

But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are ""greedy"" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.

No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little ""stunt"" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.

I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.",Negative "This movie is perfect for all the romantics in the world. John Ritter has never been better and has the best line in the movie! ""Sam"" hits close to home, is lovely to look at and so much fun to play along with. Ben Gazzara was an excellent cast and easy to fall in love with. I'm sure I've met Arthur in my travels somewhere. All around, an excellent choice to pick up any evening.!:-)",Positive "I stumbled upon Nine Dead recently and read the current reviews thinking I could deal with an average movie. This movie however was slightly below average, yet watchable. The script was poorly written and the acting was at average for a B-level movie with a couple standing out as pretty good. The plot borders on that of Saw, teach people what they did wrong in a situation and try to make them appreciate life more, but that is really where the comparison ends. Nine dead tries to have heart and purpose behind simple ideas that are not new. The main fault that I found in Nine dead, was the slap in the face to the viewer of flashbacks that occurred 3 minutes before in the film and were completely unnecessary and a completely inadequate ending that people won't see coming, in a bad way. Barring any spoilers I have seen the worse of bad movies and even they didn't end this poorly. Decent flick, bad acting and ending though...",Negative "This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.

The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.

We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.

If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed.",Positive "The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up ""The man that was death."", ""All through the house"", and ""Dig that cat, he's real gone.""

This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...

In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.",Negative "Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made ""Rock n Roll"" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got ""mad as the wrestler"" would say either ""Were out of time"" or ""Well be right back"" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who ""Georgeous"" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big ""Hes a big-on!"" punched or kicked in the guts ""right in the gussets""or when kicked ""He punted him"" or ""the ""piledriver should be banned"" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say""Right across the front-e-lobe"" or when a wrestler is in trouble ""Hes in a bad bad way"". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now!",Negative "Hollow Man starts as brilliant but flawed scientist Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) finally works out how to make things visible again after having been turned invisible by his own serum. They test the serum on an already invisible Gorilla & it works perfectly, Caine & his team of assistant's celebrate but while he should report the breakthrough to his military backers Caine wants to be the first invisible human. He manages to persuade his team to help him & the procedure works well & Caine becomes invisible, however when they try to bring him back the serum fails & he remain invisible. The team desperately search for an antidote but nothing works, Caine slowly starts to lose his grip on reality as he realises what power he has but is unable to use it being trapped in a laboratory. But then again he's invisible right, he can do anything he wants...

Directed by Paul Verhoeven I rather liked Hollow Man. You know it's just after Christmas, I saw this a few hours ago on late night/early morning cable TV & worst of all I feel sick, not because of the film but because of the chocolates & fizzy pop I've had over the past week so I'll keep this one brief. The script by Andrew W. Marlowe has a decent pace about but it does drag a little during the middle & has a good central premise, it takes he basic idea that being invisible will make you insane just like in the original The Invisible Man (1933) film which Hollow Man obviously owes a fair bit. It manages to have a petty successful blend of horror, sci-fi & action & provide good entertainment value for 110 odd minutes. I thought the character's were OK, I thought some of the ideas in the film were good although I think it's generally known that Verhoeven doesn't deal in subtlety, the first thing he has the invisible Caine do is sexually molest one of his team & then when he gets into the outside world he has Caine rape a woman with the justification 'who's going to know' that Caine says to himself. Then of course there's the gore, he shows a rat being torn apart & that's just the opening scene after the credits, to be fair to him the violence is a bit more sparse this time around but still has a quite nasty & sadistic tone about it. Having said that I love horror/gore/exploitation films so Hollow Man delivers for me, it's just that it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Director Verhoeven does a great job, or should that be the special effects boys make him look good. The special effects in Hollow Man really are spectacular & more-or-less flawless, their brilliant & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There's some good horror & action set-pieces here as well even if the climatic fight is a little over-the-top. I love the effect where Kevin Bacon disappears one layer at a time complete with veins, organs & bones on full show or when the reverse happens with the Gorilla. There's a few gory moments including a rat being eaten, someone is impaled on a spike & someone has their head busted open with blood splattering results.

With a staggering budget of about $95,000,000 Hollow Man is technically faultless, I can imagine the interviews on the DVD where some special effects boffin says they mapped Bacon's entire body out right down to he last vein which they actually did because you know everyone watching would notice if one of his veins were missing or in the wrong position wouldn't they? The acting was OK, Bacon made for a good mad scientist anti-hero type guy.

Hollow Man is one of hose big budget Hollwood extravaganzas where the effects & action take center stage over any sort of meaningful story or character's but to be brutally honest sometimes we all like that in a film, well I know I do. Good solid big budget entertainment with a slightly nastier & darker streak than the usual Hollywood product, definitely worth a watch.",Positive "I was watching this movie on Friday,Apr 7th. I didn't see the last scene ( cos I was talking with my bro n Mom in law at the same time ). Anyone can tell me what happened to her?I watched slightly that her husband was hearing someone was talking to his wife in the bedroom and then he opened the door,she's dead already.

What happened to her? Did she kill herself? How could she arrange everything like the phone calls,meanwhile she's at home when her husband was talking to this strange admirer?Anyone can explain to me,please. I am so so curious!! ( in the end,I read that she suffered from Multiply Disorder Personality ).

Thnks before.",Positive "This documentary is incredibly thought-provoking, bringing you in to the lives of two long-time lovers who are in the final stages of AIDS. The past footage of their twenty-some-odd years together really brings their final moments home.

If this movie doesn't make you feel the pain and agony of these two fascinating people, you don't have a heart.",Positive "This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.

But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.

Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.

If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.",Negative "I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us ""inside the thinking"" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just...""ends"" in a snore.",Negative "A mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, ""Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy"" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre movie.",Negative "Disney has yet to meet a movie it couldn't make at least two sequels about. And this one was no exception to the people at Disney to give a weak story to receive a quick reward. Somehow, although I did not pay to view it, I feel cheapened by watching it.

Ariel is grown up now and had a daughter. Yet doesn't allow the daughter to go into the sea because of some idle threat made by the sister of the deceased sea-witch. So here we go again.

The daughter is tricked (of course) and helps the sea-witch. After a not-so-glorious battle, she is defeated and the mermaids and humans live in harmony. Yawn.

There is nothing to view here. Go back to your lives. ""D-""",Negative "Jackie Chan's classic directorial feature POLICE STORY (1985) is among the most influential and over-the-top modern day police actioners ever to come out from Hong Kong. Jackie wanted simply to make a movie which would include the usual kung fu and also fierce gun play and other ""urban"" action which would later become very popular and typical among HK directors like John Woo and Ringo Lam. POLICE STORY mixes these two action elements and styles and the result is as wild as it sounds.

Jackie plays Chan Ka-Kui, a police who gets to protect an important witness (Brigitte Lin) who would soon testify against a powerful gangster boss and his ring of criminal activity. Jackie's girlfriend is played by young and sweet Maggie Cheung, who isn't as wild here as she would be in her subsequent roles like Heroic Trio (and the sequel) by Johnnie To, Savior of the Soul by Corey Yuen and David Lai and many many others. The plot in POLICE STORY is very simple but it is the action why this film was made in the first place.

Jackie did of course all the stunts of his character by himself and also hurt himself pretty badly in couple of scenes, some of which are also in the completed movie like at the end in which Jackie hits his head (near the eye) through a very nasty looking sharp piece of glass. Also Jackie's stunt team members almost got themselves killed during filming of this film. The scene in which a bus stops right before Jackie, spitting the kidnappers through the windshield, went really bad as the bus stopped too early and the stuntmen didn't fly as they were supposed to. They were supposed to fly on the car parked in the front of the bus but their flight was too short and they hit through the asphalt with hospital level injuries. During the end credits, there is a behind the scenes imagery and images of these injured actors and it all looks really bad and almost tasteless, but fortunately no one got killed or injured too severely.

The action is more than plentiful and imaginative as can be expected by (action) director Chan. The now legendary bus scene and shopping mall scene at then end are most likely among the wildest scenes any action film has been able to deliver. Jackie always tells how important editing is (which is true) and it really shows in his action scenes and their timing which is perfect and makes the films look so ultra kinetic when compared to Hollywood efforts, for instance. There's hardly any slow moments here and also those moments are interesting and the film never becomes boring or hard to watch.

But there is again one negative point which I cannot stand in HK action comedies, which is this comedy itself. The comedy isn't funny especially when the errors and amateurish elements in the screenplay aren't there by accident but because of the writer wanted to add them there, without necessarily understanding that they are signs of bad script and stupid dialogue. I mean those scenes like the stabbing murder attempt at the beginning when the murderer just shouts and screams and makes faces and acts like a drunken clown from some slapstick nightmare, and he is there to ""murder"" that girl. This kind of acting is stupid and inept and I wouldn't like to see it in a film which is otherwise very great in its own genre. Characters also speak their thoughts which is also a sign of bad script because those ""loud thoughts"" are there just to make things clear even for the stupidest viewer and thus making things way too simple and ""light."" Even if the film is comic and not so serious, these kind of stupidities should not be there and they cannot be forgiven too easily.

POLICE STORY is a fast speed, full impact, balls to the walls action adventure miracle from Hong Kong and from the time when Jackie was very sad because of the bad result he got with the US produced The Protector as he didn't have the same thoughts about the film as director James Glickenhaus had and thus the result didn't please audiences and Jackie and he returned to Hong Kong to make more personal and inventive film. That he definitely did and the result is as wild today as it was back then in the 80's. This is among the most insane action films ever, and it would be somewhat perfect without the flaws I mentioned. 7/10",Positive "A beautiful and touching movie that deserves a wider viewing than it is likely to get. Semra Turan plays Aicha, a second generation Turkish immigrant, who tries to break the mold. Neither entirely at home with her moderately conservative Muslim family, nor with her liberal Danish friends, Aicha's martial arts experience becomes a fight to find herself and have the strength to allow herself to be who she wants to be in spite of both family and friends.

Director Natasha Arthy manages to balance introspection and narrative so that it has depth without becoming ponderous philosophical discourse, and drawing on Xian Gao's choreography skills pays off in spectacular fight sequences. In the end, however, it is Semra Turan's stunning debut performance that gives this movie spirit. Raw charisma and requisite martial arts skills are complimented by heart to make her personal drama believable.

Well worth your while.",Positive "Yikes, it was definitely one of those sleepless nights where I surfed the channels and bumped into this stinker of a movie. For some of the names in the cast, I'd expect a much better movie. I'm almost embarrassed to see Oscar Winner F. Murray Abraham being reduced to such a horrible part. I hope the money was worth it. And the students, they talked about fencing like they were talking about survival in a war or through a horrible disaster. I mean, I've fenced, it's a fun sport, but I've never been that intense. The only reason I even watched this entire movie was because the remote fell under the sofa and I was too lazy to get it back.",Negative "I meant that in a GOOD way, believe me. True to life, it ain't. The whole Oirish thing gets kinda thick, but you DO enjoy the cast here-Flynn, Smith, Bond, Watson, Frawley, etc. All good. I also liked seeing Mike Mazurki-of Course he played a boxer, what else? Typical forties flick teeming w/ familiar faces and fast paced scenes, one after the other.

Flynn is fine as Gentleman Jim, you never get past a 1 dimensional look at him or the rest here, I suppose, but it's okay, it's a cartoon and meant to please, that's all. The boxing scenes were pretty good, Ward Bond's vaudeville logging act a riot, and you hadda like seeing all those billyclub wielding bobbies come racing into the scene a couple of times.

Really alotta fun, Flynn was on a roll at that time and it's clear to see why audiences loved him.

*** outta ****",Positive "LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a ""renegade"" cop within a ""renegade"" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of ""gentle giant"" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.

This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.

Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.

What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.

If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.",Negative "Somewhere, buried very deep inside this film is a half-way decent movie trying to get out. The only traces are a few early scenes in Los Angeles (in a bar and a graveyard) and thereafter a couple of pieces of production design. Like I say, buried very deep. One of the biggest challenges faced by movies involving the supernatural is how to have characters react believably in unbelievable situations. Annie Mcenroe's reaction to being told that her sister (presumably Dee Wallace from the first movie) is (was?) a werewolf is, if I recall, along the lines of; ""Oh! Really?"". Not one of the better responses to said challenge. The non sequitirs continue as the story moves to Trannsylvania in search of Stirba the (apparently self-appointed) ""Queen of the Werewolves"". As Stirba, Sybil Danning is the two best things in the movie. Yes, even better than the werewolf group-sex scene, Reb Brown's acting, and the oddly simian-looking werewolf suits. The end credits have assumed minor legend status and are available in all their glory (at least until the censor finds them) on Youtube. Check them out to see why and remember, the whole film makes about the same amount of sense. If you happen to catch this on US television the credits have been re-edited to replace the endlessly repeated shot of Danning ripping off her top with another endlessly repeated shot of her ripping open a cloak only this time she has some kind of top on underneath. It's a sort of absurdity, cherry-on-top moment which defies satire.",Negative "This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. ""Dance 10 Looks 3"" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.

Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.",Negative "This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...

Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a ""Ruby"" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).

There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: ""Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!"" Bad uncle Vinny: ""I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!""

There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.

But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she ""ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance"" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her ""very 80's"" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic",Positive "Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill ""One-Take"" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.",Negative "Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The ""actors"" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5",Negative "What a shame it is when a potentially captivating and refreshingly low-key story manages to latch onto your interest at the start and then gradually lets you down further and further until you're left scratching your mystified head by the time it reaches its overdone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is what happened to me by the end of WHITE NOISE.

It wasn't Michael Keaton's fault; it was a pleasure to see him return as the star of a brand new movie once again, looking a bit wrinkled perhaps, but still managing to give a strong and sincere performance. As a man whose wife has recently died, he becomes obsessed with her wandering spirit in the afterlife (not a new idea), apparently getting contacted by her through that funky electrical fuzz business you see on your television screen when there's nothing being broadcast.

The idea of spirits communicating via the airwaves is called EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and there are a lot of people who actually believe in it for real, so I'm not going to make any comments about what I think of that, or them. Let me just say that I'm all for suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into fantastic films like this, but what I can't tolerate is not understanding what the hell was supposed to be taking place, which is about where I was left stranded when the credits finally began to roll. Much static indeed.

There are occasionally movies like this that have me completely baffled, but if a film fails to make itself clear for me, I tend to consider that to be the fault of the filmmaker, not my own (unless I watched it while I was too tired to focus or something). Well, for WHITE NOISE I was wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- so guess who's to blame?",Negative "Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.

Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be.

There were three major problems with it:

The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page

Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller

Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.

Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).

And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.

On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.

Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them.

For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time.",Negative "Being S Club Seven, the film already boosts an ecstatic atmosphere! But seriously, Oprah has a point when claiming: ""Don't go there, girl!"" Spice World suddenly doesn't seem to be all that bad... I take my money elsewhere!",Negative "Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.",Negative "I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.",Positive "This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: ""1984"", ""2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's ""I Robot"" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).",Positive "Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did.",Positive "This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.",Negative "Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.",Negative "A Turkish Bath sequence in a film noir located in New York in the 50's, that must be a hint at something ! Something that curiously, in all the previous comments, no one has pointed out , but seems to me essential to the understanding of this movie

the Turkish Baths sequence: a back street at night, the entrance of a sleazy sauna, and Scalise wrapped in a sheet, getting his thighs massaged. Steve, the masseur is of the young rough boxer ( Beefcake!) type , and another guy, a bodyguard? finishes dressing up. Dixon obviously hates what he sees there and gets rough right away. We know he has a reputation for roughing up suspects. Good cop but getting out of control easy. Why is it that he hates them so much ?

Could it be that he hates himself. This part of himself he inherited from his father ? That dark side that could lead him right at the end of the sidewalk, into the gutter ? What if that dark side lurked within a ""closet"" ? Remember : whenever Dixon meets Scalise ( 3 times), the guy is lying on a bed, and he only has men around him for company ( the irony of the "" Girls"" poster pinned up on the wall near his bed !).

Scalise acts funny: affected manners, cranking his neck arrogantly, defiant, shoving his inhalator ( poppers ?) into his nostrils each time he talks to Dixon. Dixon, with a vengeance, is bent on pinning down Scalise who seems not to understand : ""I never saw a man so full of hate as you. I consider it almost humorous the way you came after me alone. "" Four years jumping at me as if I was somebody special! Why? ""

Because Scalise is someone special indeed : he is the direct inheritor of Dixon's father : "" Your father liked me"", ""Your father set me up in business"". He stands as Dixon's criminal brother, his dark side incarnate. And to top it all, he prefers the company of men. Dixon knows it well :"" Who killed him (Paine)? You or one of your playmates?"" Playmates ! Notice how each time they meet, Dixon manhandles Scalise: he picks the address-book out of his jacket, slaps his face, punches him. Scalise : ""I warn you not to touch me! "" . Dixon's homophobia is obvious. Or put it different : his unexpressed homosexuality . Dixon, aka Dixon's kid, is the son of a thief. In reaction to this, he decided to become a cop, a good one, but there is something of the criminal in him, a dark side: he is a violent copper, a murderer, a liar. Besides, he is not married, brings ""a dizzy blonde"" to his familiar eat-out place every now and then, but nothing else. The waitress scoffing says that he doesn't know how to make love to a woman. Dixon has a deep feeling of guilt and hates himself for those reasons."" A hood and a mobster like his old man. Blood will tell"". Finally, in order to achieve redemption, Dixon decides to sacrifice himself : if he gets his alter ego Scalise to kill him, he will free himself from the guilt and free the girl and her father too.

The end of the movie brings us back to the opening sequence : Scalise is pushed in the gutter and Dixon deserves the right to walk the sidewalk and wins the love of the dame. He is straight at last.

The unspoken theme of the movie could very well be that of a man who in order to cover his repressed feelings, wants to experience a woman's love ( Jean Douchet)

(These notes owe a lot to the film commentary by Jean Douchet in the French DVD edited by CarlottaI",Positive "higher learning is a slap in the face for those of us that have been in the closet too long regardless of ethnic background. it's a subject most of us would like to ignore but we cannot afford to if there is to be a real progressive change in the way we HAVE TO be able embrace and understand diversity.some have criticized this film as hateful or dumb but the fact of the matter is, ignorance reigns supreme in the world and several continue to help it dominate our society.everyone involved in this film has done a good deed in showing what steps must continue to be done in order to not have to make anymore films like higher learning.sure it sounds like a pipe dream but we have to start somewhere and this helps.",Positive "Rosalind Russell executes a power-house performance as Rosie Lord, a very wealthy woman with greedy heirs. With an Auntie Mame-type character, this actress can never go wrong. Her very-real terror at being in an insane assylum is a wonderful piece of acting. Everyone should watch this.",Positive ".......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.

He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.

Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.

Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.",Positive "The great talents of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger are noticeable in their wonderful ""A Matter of Life and Death"". It was part of the recent tribute to Mr. Powell that played at the Walter Reade in New York. This film, in particular, shows us one of the best British films from that, or any other era.

""A Matter of Life and Death"" has a brilliant cinematography by Jack Cardiff, a man who knew how to work wonders with a camera. Particularly impressive is the contrast from the monochromatic tones given to the scenes played in heaven, and the colored ones when the action comes back to earth. This was quite a coup, and well ahead of its times. The black and white sequence that involves the long staircase where Peter and the Conductor are chatting has to be one of the most amazing things on any film.

Much has been said in this forum about the film, so our comment will be about the great acting Powell and Pressberger got out of the large, distinguished cast, who responded magnificently to the directors' guidance.

David Niven, is Peter, whose aircraft is hit and his best friend dies as a result of it. This film marked one of the highlights in Mr. Niven's career. He was an excellent film actor as he shows us in this movie. Kim Hunter is surprisingly good as June, the woman who talked to Peter as his plane was falling from the skies. As fate would have it, Peter and June fall in love at first sight.

Some of the best British film actors grace this film with their presence. Robert Coote, is Bob, the man who is admitted to heaven, but he is surprised his friend Peter never made the trip with him. An excellent star turn by Marius Goring, who as the Conductor 71 steals the film. Mr. Goring, who had worked with the directors, is one of the best things in the movie. Also, Roger Livesey, as Dr. Frank Reeves, does one of the best appearances of his career, as well as Raymond Massey, who is seen as Abraham Farlan.

""A Matter of Life and Death"" is a timeless film that will always be seen with gratitude toward its creators.",Positive "First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.

I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver.

It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.

However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.

Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.",Positive "As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming ""a perfect spy"". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming ""a perfect spy"". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to ""a perfect spy"". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called ""the secret path"": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.",Positive "Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such ""Do The Right Thing,"" most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.

What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's ""open season"" on them.

Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.

He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire.

Hey, Spike: start ""doing the right thing"" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, ""get over it.""

This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.",Negative "I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites.",Positive "The film adaptation of James Joyce's Ulysses is excellent. The actors, the voice overs, the direction, it all captures the feel of the novel without sacrificing its own merits. The Milo O'Shea does an excellent job as Leopold Bloom, the cuckolded man married to the sassy Molly. I absolutely love this picture.",Positive """Silverlake Life"" is a documentary and it was plain and straightforward. Actually, it was more like a home movie, and if you want dramatic illuminations, see something else. And it's by no means a tearjerker. But I mean that in positive ways. It shows two men who love each other and how being afflicted with AIDS is affecting the quality of their every-day lives. It's almost difficult for me to say whether this was a quality film or not, because it was so undressed that I had to look for other ways to respond. It's an admirable film, actually one of the most admirable, sincere documents I've ever seen. These two men have incredible integrity as their lives are reduced to the most basic parts. It makes Hollow-wood productions on AIDS seem hip and heartless. These men made this movie for themselves, which is one of the best reasons to create something. The scene where Tom sings ""You are My Sunshine"" to Mark and tells him goodbye is the real thing.",Positive "At first sight this movie doesn't look like a particular great one. After all a Bette Davis movies with only 166 votes on IMDb and a rating of 6,5 must be a rather bad one. But the movie turned out to be a delightful and original surprise.

You would at first expect that this is a normal average typical '30's movie with a formulaic love-story but the movie is surprisingly well constructed and has an unusual and original story, which also helps to make this movie a very pleasant one to watch.

The story is carried by its two main characters played by Bette Davis and George Brent. Their helped by a cast of mostly amusing characters but the movie mainly involves just around them two. Their character are involved in a most unusual and clever written love-story that work humorous as well. It makes this movie a delightful little comedy to watch, that is perfectly entertaining.

The movie is quite short (just over an hour long), which means that the story doesn't waste any time on needless plot lines, development and characters. It makes the movie also rather fast paced, which helps to make this movie a perfectly watchable one by todays standards as well. It does perhaps makes the movie a bit of a simple one at times but this never goes at the expense of its entertainment or fun.

A delightful pleasant simple romantic-comedy that deserves to be seen by more!

8/10",Positive "Why did I enjoy the show to the last episode? Because of the true talent Melissa Joan Hart and her supporting cast had of demonstrating that whit, comedy, light-hearted humor, and deep thought could actually coexist. What I enjoyed most was the fact that I could come home from a hard day's work, and bust a smile... I was inspired... and why? It was an inspiration to watch as this magical person was so happy while helping others.

Sabrina was a hero in my opinion... even though she was vulnerable in ways that were not so different from our own... to very different; she had powers at her fingertip, wishes, and command that could be used for good or bad which may only exist in many of our imaginations. Most everything we see, have, know about, own, or even desire... can be used for good or bad, and how we choose to define that, defines the person we are.

She traveled the globe and other realms with these constant and unwaivering ideas in mind... to learn, to live, to laugh, and to love. She was always learning how to improve her skills to the benefit of all around her; she made mistakes as she was living life, going through different journey's of growth, as she, her aunts, and Salem (the underrated, yet imperfect hero) did well to demonstrate that even through mistakes, you can still be noble, gifted, and wonderful.

She also demonstrated many selfless, learning, and loving acts as she went along her way. If this isn't reason enough for 10 stars in this war torn world where people are so hostile toward each other, not realizing how differences are the spice of life rather than a reason to kill... then I don't know what is. This show was most certainly a trip to a better world as well as an inspiration to be better ourselves and a gift intended to bust a smile on our chops... I've heard from a doctor before that everything that I've mentioned above leads to a healthy ""hart""... and isn't that what we all need? :)",Positive I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie. I couldn't even call it a movie. It was so bad with nothing to recommend it.

I like low budget movies and weird flicks but this one had me bored to death. Badly made and bad acting ruined it from being curious. You have to wonder what these people were thinking when they spent money to produce this movie. I wonder what I was thinking watching it to the end. I recommend this movie to no one. How did they release this? Was there an audience who likes this kind of movie? There must be because you can find this at almost any video store. But why?

Deserves to be forgotten.

If you like bad movies then this is for you.,Negative "This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way.",Positive "I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, ""How much longer?"" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.",Negative "Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic ""Citizen Kane"". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In ""Citizen Kane"" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately!",Positive "This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.

Try to see the ""NC-17"" workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated ""R"".",Negative "I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's ""Waitress"" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie ""The Bastard Song"" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy:

""It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless""",Positive "as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.",Negative "I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.

Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.

The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.

Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.",Negative "In the periphery of São Paulo, the very low middle-class dysfunctional and hypocrite family of Teodoro (Giulio Lopes), Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and the teenager Soninha (Sílvia Lourenço) have deep secrets. The religious Teodoro is indeed a hit-man, hired to kill people in the neighborhood with his friend Waldomiro (Ailton Graça). He has a lover, the very devout woman Terezinha (Martha Meola), and he wants to regenerate, going to the country with her. Cláudia has a young lover, Júlio (Ismael de Araújo), who delivers meats for his father's butcher shop. Soninha is a common sixteen years old teenager of the periphery, having active sexual life, smoking grass and loving heavy metal. When Júlio is killed and castrated in their neighborhood, the lives of the members of the family change.

""Contra Todos"" is a great low budget Brazilian movie that pictures the life in the periphery of a big Brazilian city. The story is very real, uses the usual elements of the poor area of the big Brazilian cities (drug dealers, hit men, fanatic religious evangelic people, hopeless teenagers etc.), has many plot points and a surprising end, and the characters have excellent performances, acting very natural and making the story totally believable. The camera follows the characters, giving a great dynamics to the film. In the Extras of the DVD, the director Roberto Moreira explains that his screenplay had no lines, only the description of the situations, and was partially disclosed only one week before the beginning of the shootings. The actors have trainings in workshops and they used lots of improvisation, being the reason for such natural acting. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ""Contra Todos"" (""Against Everybody"")",Positive "This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.

The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.

I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.

For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.

Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?",Negative "The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds ""Young Catherine"" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to ""bond"" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not ""great,"" but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like ""Peter the Great"" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West.",Negative "This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the ""fact"" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, ""uncle"" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, ""uncle.""

The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around ""boasting"" about it? - I don't think so.

Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.

All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's ""Merry Widow"" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any ""Flying Dutchman"" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!

Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?

I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.

Give it a miss.",Negative "I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb.",Positive "No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series ""Monarch Cove."" Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.

Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her ""Thorn Birds"" days.

The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of ""steamy"" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.

If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.

CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!",Negative "I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie.",Positive "Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.",Negative "Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one.",Positive "What a joke. I am watching it on Channel 1 and I think watching paint dry is much more entertaining. What happened to Caspar Van Dien that got him roped into this nightmare. Terrible acting, very boring plot and terrible direction. It so terrible, it's funny. It's suppose to be full of suspense, but it more a comedy. If you want to see terrible acting, ridiculous script writing and sub-par plot, check this movie out. If I was Van Dien, I would not only ask for my 10% from my agent, but fire the bastard in the process. What a turkey. It's not even fit to be on MST 3K!! It would be a good movie to cure you insomnia. I especially love the part where Van Dien is throw overboard and then makes it back in just a few minutes! I can only image that this was written by non-union writers taking advantage of the writer's strike. What a horrible movie!!!",Negative "Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen.",Positive "I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!",Negative "Apart from Helen Bonham Carter, there is nothing worthy about this movie....And the surprise ending?! The thought of a sequel is even more annoying. Save your money, wait for the video and ignore that too.",Negative "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.",Positive "Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.",Negative "Although this lovely work of art does use some of the cinematic vocabulary of surrealism, it is in fact nothing of the sort. It is a political and cultural allegory of Mexico's post-Columbian odyssey, as even a passing glance at Mexico's history will attest.

In contrast to ""Like Water for Chocolate,"" ""Erendira"" expects the viewer to meet it at least half way so that understanding it takes a little work. (A good starting point is to see the grandmother character as Spain: proud, aloof, sorrowful and, above all else, weighed-down-with-history.)

The ultimate actions of the heroine are obscure because the ""outcome"" of history (i.e. the present) is always obscure, since we are too close to it for honest evaluation. Refusal to neatly tie up loose ends is the only real choice available to the director, given the ambitions of the film.

""Erendira"" is gorgeous. A big-screen experience would be ideal, if you can catch it at a local art house or university screening. But if not, VHS is better than never seeing it at all.",Positive "Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.

The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, ""the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood."" The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, ""collapse in a heap on the floor"" and have their lives forever changed by the event.

For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.

To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.

To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me.",Positive "This movie had me going. The title was perhaps the greatest idea that I heard. I thought it was an independent movie about a zombie outbreak and their quest to take over the US and a group of lone survivors, band together, and plan to take out the zombies. DEAD WRONG! It's about a psycho cop with a weakness for killing his female arrests gets what's coming to him when a pack of zombie women rise from their graves in order to get proper revenge. As you can see there is nothing about the nation nor a county involved. Where to begin with the severity this cinematic disaster caused our nation.

First off, the zombie women look like Victoria Secret models with dark eyeliner and a pale face. What are zombies but mindless, debatable intelligent, cannibalistic killing machines that eat as a result of their primitive most basic needs? These zombie women walk like streetwalkers and runway models, they talk as if they are in a poor film noir movie and not do they act like real zombies. Sure the eating and killing is there, but where is the mindlessness and the horrible disfigurement? Although it is a very interesting concept and perhaps a great satire on the zombie genre, it makes fun of that genre and asks the question, ""why can't zombies be beautiful vixen killing machines?"" I would say that this movie would be considered a really bad indie movie that was produced and made by garage junkies. I would not recommend this movie to anybody that loves zombie genres too much, it's an insult and as for scary…not even.",Negative "If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).

Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.

Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, ""who's my mama""? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.

People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.

Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.",Negative "The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.

Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in ""Five the Hard Way"". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.

Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.",Negative "In the immortal ""Shaun of the Dead"", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. ""Fido"" presents us with an epilogue to ""Shaun"" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original ""what-if...?"" movie.

The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.

The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic ""boy-and-his-dog"" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his ""pet"" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.

A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including ""The Matrix""'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), ""Fido"" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.

""Fido"" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible ""Shaun of the Dead"".",Positive "this film was shrouded in scandal for so long that it became a very sought after item...the outrage, the mystery, etc. it had everything to be a great piece of film-making, but ultimately fails in every extent. it's a terribly bad comedy, a pathetic horror movie, a lame erotic film.

the 2 disc DVD includes a gorgeous booklet with stills, interviews, essays on bestiality, etc. as well as an extensive interview with the more-than-pretentious director. for those who have heard about it but never seen it, the package will seem fantastic until one actually sees the film. disc 1 contains the edited film, badly translated to English but with good visual quality. disc 2 contains the director's cut, in an awful transfer, in french.

what can I say about the actual beast? a hand puppet of Kermit the frog would have been more effective and shocking.",Negative "Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film ""Blood For The Muse"" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.",Negative "After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless

Where i saw it: Starz on Demand",Negative "A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.",Negative "This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please.

I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!

Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!

Thanks for reading.",Positive "Suffice to say that - despite the odd ludicrous panegyric to his soi disant ""abilities"" posted here - the director of this inept, odious tosh hasn't made a film since. Well that is excellent news as far as I'm concerned.

Dead Babies has all of the bile of its creator, but lacks the wit and technical proficiency that make Martin Amis the novelist readable.

When will the British film industry wake up and realise that if it wants to regain the status it once had it should stop producing rubbish like this and make something real people will actually want to watch?

Avoid like the plague.",Negative "Way, way back in the 1980s, long before NAFTA was drafted and corporations began to shed their national identities, the United States and Japan were at each other's throat in the world manufacturing race. Remember sayings like 'Union Yes!,' 'the Japanese are taking this country over,' and 'Americans are lazy?'

As the Reagan era winded down and corporations edged towards a global marketplace, director Ron Howard made one of several trips into the comedy genre with his 1986 smash 'Gung Ho,' which drew over $36 million in U.S. box office receipts. While in many ways dated, Howard's tongue-in-cheek story of colliding cultures in the workplace still offers hard truth for industrial life today.

'Gung Ho' focuses on Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton), the automakers union rep from Hadleyville, a small, depressed town in the foothills of Pennsylvania. Stevenson has been asked to visit the Assan Motor Company in Tokyo (similar to real-life Toyota), which is considering a U.S. operation at the town's empty plant. With hundreds of residents out of work and the town verging on collapse, Assan decides to move in and Stevenson is hired as a liaison between company officials and workers on the assembly line.

The 112 minutes of 'Gung Ho' is a humorous look at these two sides, with their strengths and weaknesses equally considered: on one hand, an American workforce that values its traditions but is often caught in the frenzy of pride and trade unionism; on the other hand, Japanese workers who are extremely devoted to their job yet lacking in personal satisfaction and feelings of self-worth. In Stevenson, we find an American working class figure of average intelligence with the skills to chat people through misunderstandings. With the survival of his workers' jobs and most of Hadleyville on the line, Stevenson proves a likable guy who wants nothing more than a fair chance, although his cleverness will sink him into a great deal of trouble. Besides answering to the heads of Assan, we witness a delicate balancing act between Stevenson and his fellow union members, many of whom he grew up with. This includes Buster (George Wendt), Willie (John Turturro), and Paul (Clint Howard, Ron's brother).

The Japanese cast is headed by Gedde Watanabe, also known for 'Sixteen Candles' and 'Volunteers.' Watanabe plays Kazihiro, the plant manager who is down on his luck and begins to feel a sympathy for American life. He is constantly shadowed by Saito (Sab Shimono), the nephew of Assan's CEO who is desperate to take his spot in the pecking order. While given a light touch, these characters fare very well in conveying ideas of the Japanese working culture.

With Hunt Stevenson dominating the script, Michael Keaton has to give a solid performance for this film to work. 'Gung Ho' is indeed a slam-dunk success for Keaton, who also teamed with Ron Howard in 1994's 'The Paper.' He made this film during a string of lighter roles that included 'Mr. Mom,' 'Beetle Juice,' and 'The Dream Team' before venturing into 'Batman,' 'One Good Cop,' and 'My Life.' It's also hard not to like Gedde Watanabe's performance as the odd man out, who first wears Japanese ribbons of shame before teaming up with Stevenson to make the auto plant a cohesive unit.

The supporting cast is top-notch, including Wendt, Turturro, Shimono, and Soh Yamamura as Assan CEO Sakamoto. Mimi Rogers supplies a romantic interest as Audrey, Hunt's girlfriend. Edwin Blum, Lowell Ganz, and Babaloo Mandel teamed up for Gung Ho's solid writing. The incidental music, which received a BMI Film Music Award, was composed by Thomas Newman. Gung Ho's soundtrack songs are wall-to-wall 80s, including 'Don't Get Me Wrong,' 'Tuff Enuff,' and 'Working Class Man.'

The success of 'Gung Ho' actually led to a short-lived TV series on ABC. While more impressive as a social commentary twenty years ago, Ron Howard's film still has its comic value. It is available on DVD as part of the Paramount Widescreen Collection and is a tad short-changed. Audio options are provided in English 5.1 surround, English Dolby surround, and French 'dubbing,' but subtitles are in English only. There are no extras, not even the theatrical trailer. On the plus side, Paramount's digital transfer is quite good, with little grain after the opening credits and high quality sound. While a few extras would have been helpful - especially that 'Gung Ho' was a box office success - there's little to complain about the film presentation itself.

*** out of 4",Positive "I had to do a search on the actresses to find the board of this film because the title is now An Unexpected Love. It's not really worth looking for but I was unfamiliar with both leads and wondered why they were headlining a lesbian flick on Lifetime. Everything's pretty restrained and you don't really get an idea of who these characters are so, as a viewer, I wasn't able to become emotionally invested in the storyline. I guess I'm not the target audience for this but I'm not sure who is. Everything's muted and soft focus and earth tones...nothing's very interesting. I had a prurient interest in seeing two women make out but it's handled so discreetly that I was disappointed. Rent Personal Best instead.",Negative """Hollywood Hotel"" has relationships to many films like ""Ella Cinders"" and ""Merton of the Movies"" about someone winning a contest including a contract to make films in Hollywood, only to find the road to stardom either paved with pitfalls or non-existent. In fact, as I was watching it tonight, on Turner Classic Movies, I was considering whether or not the authors of the later musical classic ""Singing In The Rain"" may have taken some of their ideas from ""Hollywood Hotel"", most notably a temperamental leading lady star in a movie studio and a conclusion concerning one person singing a film score while another person got the credit by mouthing along on screen.

""Hollywood Hotel"" is a fascinating example of movie making in the 1930s. Among the supporting players is Louella Parsons, playing herself (and, despite some negative comments I've seen, she has a very ingratiating personality on screen and a natural command of her lines). She is not the only real person in the script. Make-up specialist Perc Westmore briefly appears as himself to try to make one character resemble another.

This film also was one of the first in the career of young Mr. Ronald Reagan, playing a radio interviewer at a movie premiere. Reagan actually does quite nicely in his brief scenes - particularly when he realizes that nobody Dick Powell is about to take over the microphone when it should be used with more important people.

Dick Powell has won a Hollywood contract in a contest, and is leaving his job as a saxophonist in Benny Goodman's band. The beginning of this film, by the way, is quite impressive, as the band drives in a parade of trucks to give a proper goodbye to Powell. They end up singing ""Hooray For Hollywood"". The interesting thing about this wonderful number is that a lyric has been left out on purpose. Throughout the Johnny Mercer lyrics are references to such Hollywood as Max Factor the make-up king, Rin tin tin, and even a hint of Tarzan. But the original song lyric referred to looking like Tyrone Power. Obviously Jack Warner and his brothers were not going to advertise the leading man of 20th Century Fox, and the name Donald Duck was substituted. In any event the number showed the singers and instrumentalists of Goodman's orchestra at their best. So did a later five minute section of the film, where the band is rehearsing.

Powell leaves the band and his girl friend (Frances Langford) and goes to Hollywood, only to find he is a contract player (most likely for musicals involving saxophonists). He is met by Allen Joslyn, the publicist of the studio (the owner is Grant Mitchell). Joslyn is not a bad fellow, but he is busy and he tends to slough off people unless it is necessary to speak to them. He parks Powell at a room at the Hollywood Hotel, which is also where the studio's temperamental star (Lola Lane) lives with her father (Hugh Herbert), her sister (Mabel Todd), and her sensible if cynical assistant (Glenda Farrell). Lane is like Jean Hagen in ""Singing In The Rain"", except her speaking voice is good. Her version of ""Dan Lockwood"" is one ""Alexander Dupre"" (Alan Mowbray, scene stealing with ease several times). The only difference is that Mowbray is not a nice guy like Gene Kelly was, and Lane (when not wrapped up in her ego) is fully aware of it. Having a fit on being by-passed for an out-of-the ordinary role she wanted, she refuses to attend the premiere of her latest film. Joslyn finds a double for her (Lola's real life sister Rosemary Lane), and Rosemary is made up to play the star at the premiere and the follow-up party. But she attends with Powell (Joslyn wanting someone who doesn't know the real Lola). This leads to Powell knocking down Mowbray when the latter makes a pest of himself. But otherwise the evening is a success, and when the two are together they start finding each other attractive.

The complications deal with Lola coming back and slapping Powell in the face, after Mowbray complains he was attacked by Powell (""and his gang of hoodlums""). Powell's contract is bought out. Working with photographer turned agent Ted Healey (actually not too bad in this film - he even tries to do a Jolson imitation at one point), the two try to find work, ending up as employees at a hamburger stand run by bad tempered Edgar Kennedy (the number of broken dishes and singing customers in the restaurant give Edgar plenty of time to do his slow burns with gusto). Eventually Powell gets a ""break"" by being hired to be Dupre's singing voice in a rip-off of ""Gone With The Wind"". This leads to the final section of the film, when Rosemary Lane, Herbert, and Healey help give Powell his chance to show it's his voice, not Mowbrays.

It's quite a cute and appealing film even now. The worst aspects are due to it's time. Several jokes concerning African-Americans are no longer tolerable (while trying to photograph Powell as he arrives in Hollywood, Healey accidentally photographs a porter, and mentions to Joslyn to watch out, Powell photographs too darkly - get the point?). Also a bit with Curt Bois as a fashion designer for Lola Lane, who is (shall we say) too high strung is not very tolerable either. Herbert's ""hoo-hoo""ing is a bit much (too much of the time) but it was really popular in 1937. And an incident where Healey nearly gets into a brawl at the premiere (this was one of his last films) reminds people of the tragic, still mysterious end of the comedian in December 1937. But most of the film is quite good, and won't disappoint the viewer in 2008.",Positive "What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, ""I'm not crazy!"" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.

Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those ""if you see this image, turn away from the screen"" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.",Negative "Oh dear! The first time I heard of this bad show was when one of my friends was yelling like an idiot ""JOHNY TEST"" while we were playing video games. I thought he was confusing ""Johny Quest"" (by the way, one of the best cartoons I've ever seen in my life"", and changing the ""Quest"" with ""Test"". Its something weird that I'm wrong, but actually I was wrong, he wasn't changing nothing, he heard of this show.

One day, while watching TV, I heard that Cartoon Network was going to be released. I wasn't sure of what was the plot of this show, so I adventured myself to watch it, and here is my answer ""I WANT MY DAMN HOUR BACK"" (Because I watched this crap and ""My Gym Partner's a Monkey"".

This is one of the worst shows I've ever seen. First, the beginning, with the most stupid song in the world, then the plot. Oh, where are my manners? I haven't said the plot of this show. Is about a boy who has to AMAZINGLY INTELLIGENT sisters, that have a lab and make experiments with their own brother. OHHH, now I see why his name is Johny TEST, he is the test of his sisters experiments.

You know, I honestly miss Dexter's Lab (before it was transformed to the NEW Dexter, a total crap too). This is a bad copy of that old good show, except that this show is amazingly bad. Don't watch it, make something more productive in that half-hour than watch this crap.",Negative "What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.

Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.

* outta ****",Negative "I love a good war film and I fall into the ""been there, done that"" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.

It started off with me shouting at the TV saying ""you wouldn't do that"" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.

There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.

The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the ""Contact Right"" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?

Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.

Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)

The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.

There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!

Not recommended...it will just bore you.",Negative "...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but ""accidentally"" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like ""what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault."" he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says ""i'm scared frank!"". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of ""jaws: the revenge"". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10

P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**",Negative "I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.",Positive "Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.

Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!

This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)

3 out of 10.",Negative "I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.

At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.

Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.",Positive "This movie leaves the intellectual mind thinking and trying to analyze the story. I too cannot understand why people would trash this movie.

If you are a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, this movie may not suitable for u.

This movie presents high degree of realism. The actors and actresses' performance is examplary. Not fake, just natural.

No special sound.effects, so special side effects.

The camera work is excellent, the music is oh so good. I can't wait to get the soundtrack.

It leaves your body numb, like Constant Garderner.The directly has raw talent, certainly not a follower.",Positive "I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead.",Positive "Full House is a wonderful sitcom that is about a dad, Danny Tanner, whose wife had just died in a car crash. So Danny asks his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis, and best friend, Joey Gladstone, to help raise his three girls, Donna Jo 'DJ' Tanner, Stephanie Tanner, and Michelle Tanner. This is my favorite show ever, and I can watch it all day long. And something on Full House is always making me laugh and there are sad parts also. There is never a dull moment in Full House. The main characters are played by, Bob Saget(Danny Tanner), John Stamos(Jesse Katsopolis), Dave Coulier(Joey Gladstone), Candace Cameron(DJ Tanner), Jodie Sweetin(Stephanie Tanner), and Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen(Michelle Tanner).",Positive "This movie came to me highly recommended by Matt Groening. Well actually I watched both The Simpsons and Futurama and it gets a mention in both so I figured ""what the heck"". The film brings home a few ""what if's"" that make you realise how lucky we are in this day and age where we take simple things like soap and water for granted. Interesting though that in the year 2022 men are still shaving with a single blade safety razor! Nice that Those responsible didn't over load the film with unnecessary special effects, ray guns, etc. Some nice looking 'furniture' once you figure out what that means. Remember, ""Tuesday is Soylent Green Day""",Positive "The Film must have been shot in a day,there are scenes where you can see the camera reflections and its red pointer,even the scenery's green light that blends with the actors!!!The plot and the lines are really awful without even the slightest inspiration(At least as a thriller genre movie).Everything that got to do with Poe in the movie,has a shallow and childish approach.The film is full of clise and no thrilling.If you want to watch a funny b-movie for a relaxing evening with friends then go for it you will enjoy it (As I Did) but there's no way to take this film seriously!",Negative "I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued.

No wonder we had never heard of this ""movie"", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.

But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile.",Negative """The Bank"" (1915, Chaplin) ""The Bank"" was one of Charlie's 1915 Essanay films. While these group of films are more watchable than their 1914 counterparts, this one seems a bit below average. The gag with the janitorial double combo-locked vault and the tough-luck ending that has Charlie waking up from a dream, in which he is stroking the lead lady's hair, only to be stroking the head of a mop he had used as a quasi pillow, are both classic Chaplin moments. They are both ironically the beginning and the end. The middle is filled in with fighting with the rival co-worker janitor and busting up a bank robbery to win the girl. The mop is probably the greatest physical prop of this movie and Charlie uses it to expert comedic effect whether while it is the intention of his character or not. The mop seems to be Charlie's alter-ego doing things he wishes he could do but wouldn't with his own two hands. Interesting stuff but there's better.",Negative "this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.",Negative "Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and ""Whoopee"" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, ""cool"" music blah blah blah

Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the ""who will die next"" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...

Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...

Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...

Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap",Negative "This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the ""dire"" slot.

Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.

I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.

All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.

P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!",Negative "I watched this last night with low expectations. The reasons being, I don't usually like ""made for TV"" movies and rarely have I liked ""cast reunion"" movies. But, the critic in the Los Angeles Times seemed to like this, so I gave it a chance. I'm glad I did. It was pretty good. Adam West and Burt Ward reunite as themselves. But, in a way, they were acting as their ""Batman and Robin"" selves. They were being campy and not taking themselves, or this movie too seriously. The movie starts out with them searching for the ""George Barris"" designed Batmobile, that someone stole before it was to be auctioned off for an orphan's home. While, they are searching for the car, they are also reminiscing about the series that they did together. This is told in flashback. It was well done. The actors that they got, for the younger Burt Ward and Adam West were dead on. And, for a TV movie, it got down to the nitty-gritty about their real behavior on and off the screen. I give this one a 9/10, I liked it that much.",Positive "I wasn't really fond of the first ""Cube"" movie. It was a good idea, but the annoying acting and characters always kept me from liking it too much. Didn't really feel the need to see its sequel but when I heard they were making a third movie that would act as more of a prequel to the original. I was intrigued, thinking that maybe they would fix some of the original's problems and provide us with a memorable cast of characters. Well I thought wrong.

""Cube Zero"" starts well enough by introducing us with the two characters in charge of watching and maintaining the never-ending maze of traps that plagues the people in the Cube. The filmmakers succeed in providing a sense of mystery with the establishment of the two men's daily routine. Several questions are created from it, concerning the reason why people are send there and also the true nature of the ones who run the entire operation. All of which are left entirely to the viewer. The acting was a bit weak but all in all the movie's first half moved relatively well.

With the story moving on, one of the two ""watchers"" begins to develop serious doubts about what he is doing. And later decides to go and help a group of the people trapped. Here is where everything rapidly starts to dissolve into dull cheese.

Sent by the people who run the Cube program we are introduced to the character ""Jax"". Along with his two underlings play a major reason as to why this movie is failure. To start of ""Jax"" looks and talks more like a third rate villain taken directly from a James Bond movie complete with the ever ""popular"" glass eye, that alone ruins any atmosphere created by the first half's relatively nice pace. Whats more is that it begins to feel more like a comedy rather than a serious movie. With some incredibly corny lines, perhaps the screenwriter got bored and didn't care. The acting itself degrades to a further low when the former ""watcher"" meets the group in the Cube. The entire interaction is painful to watch as is everything else following it.

Again failing to impress on anything but weak characters, dialog and acting ""Cube Zero"" is a waste of time for those searching for a good horror movie.",Negative "I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.",Negative "This cartoon was strange, but the story actually had a little more depth and emotion to it than other cartoon movies. We have a girl at a camp with low self esteem and hardly any other friends, except a brother and sister who are just a miserable as she is. She reaches the ultimate low point and when the opportunity arises she literally makes a pact with a devil-like demon. I found this film to be very true to life and just when things couldn't be worse, the girl sees what she's done, she feels remorse and then changes and then she helps this dark, mystical creature learn the human quality of love. The twins improve too, by helping the little bears and then they get a sense of self worth too. A very positive message for children, though some elements of the film was strange, it was and still is a rather enjoyable film. The music from Stephen Bishop (Tootsie songs) made the film even better",Positive """GI Samurai"" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.

The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics (""what is this flying metal box?"" etc etc), ""aren't we better off here"" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.

Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking ""weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action.",Positive "Now this is what I'm talking about. Finally, a low-budget horror outing that uses its limitations to its advantage. WENDIGO, while occasionally flawed, is a triumph of the imagination. Granted, it leans heavy on EVIL DEAD style camera moves for its moodiness, but it's still a damn sight better than 99% of direct to video dross.

The story is pretty simple: a family takes a vacation at a remote cabin and are menaced by one particularly unhinged hunter. But director Larry Fessenden really knows how to build suspense and add layers of unsettling creepiness through the use of the mythical Wendigo. Is it real? Is it all in the boy's imagination? Is it an externalization of the child's emotional state?

Some have quibbled that the film is unsatisfying because it's left to you to decide. Don't be put off by such petty nonsense. A film that makes you think is not one to avoid. It's one to rejoice in.",Positive "When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of ""Basic Instinct"" and some maybe of ""Showgirls"". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: ""De Vierde Man"". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. ""De Vierde Man"" makes even ""Basic Instinct"" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least...",Positive "This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.",Negative "This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.

Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties.

But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.

Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.

Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to ""Shaaadaaaap"" after the poisoned cake incident""). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.

So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone.",Positive "I have been a Jodie Foster fan ever since we were both kids, from her Disney years. I loved her tomboy antics in films like Candleshoe.

""Foxes"" was such a huge departure from all of that.

Where other young female actors of that era turned to sexual puerility disguised as comedy (""Little Darlings"", anyone?), Jodie went for a depressing and tragic tale of teens dragged to their demise by the powerful allure of temptation and addiction.

This was not Disney. This was not Porky's. This was not ""Halloweed"". This was a dark & powerful story of the destruction of young lives. Sadly it's a tale that still plays out on a daily basis all over the country, this film could be replayed (with a current soundtrack) and still be wholly relevant.

It's not the best film ever made, it is tired at some parts, not all the performances are particularly outstanding. But Jodie Foster continued to show her chops as a real adult actor (a trend started when she was very young in Taxi Driver).

7 out of 10 Barky",Positive "Not a film to be taken seriously, but a great little film nonetheless.

It's definitely NOT just a piece of fluff. The acting, IMO, is excellent.

One of those films you wouldn't go out of your way to see, but it brings a smile every time it comes around on cable. Like an old friend.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance.

- - - - - - - -",Positive "I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer

of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this

film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for

altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is

not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,

realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters

the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama.

From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans

the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's

change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except

for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the

Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,

changing a real story about the relationship between two people,

one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a

movie star is sad",Negative "At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, ""Apart From That"" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, ""Apart From That"" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.

This movie must be seen.",Positive "The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.",Positive "It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster ""Hollywood Canteen."" This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.",Negative "Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, ""Oh, God"". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.",Positive "Anyone giving this movie a good review obviously must have had something to do with its creation. This movie is a painful suckfest. The acting is stiff, the stock generic soundtrack is laughable, the direction is bland and strangest of all, the teacher really isn't all that attractive (making the student's blatant advances all the more awkward). The creative minds behind this trash should disband and spread out to prevent further displays of such concentrated craptitude. I'm certain that some starving kids in Africa could have used the money squandered on this project. Hell, the funds would have also seen a more enlightened purpose fueling a crack-addict; at least someone would be getting some entertainment out of it. For the sole reason that it didn't give me a terminal illness, I'll give this film a two.",Negative "I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie!",Positive "In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.",Negative "There's a good reason that Walter Pidgeon is warning off Leslie Nielson and his crew from the relief ship, stuff he dare not dream about.

As Doctor Edward Morbius, Pidgeon is the last survivor of an expedition that came to this planet 20 years earlier. Since that time he married another member of the expedition and had a daughter, Anne Francis. They are the only humans left on this planet which was once the home world of an ancient civilization known as the Krell.

The records as deciphered by Pidgeon indicate the Krell came to a cataclysmic ending of unknown origin. The machinery they left behind is still functioning.

Maybe functioning too well as members of the relief party start dying and in a particular gruesome fashion.

I see all kinds of speculation about a remake and this is one film not to remake because it's as fresh as it was in 1956. The terms would change, we would now say warp speed instead of hyper drive, courtesy of the enduring popularity of Star Trek.

We might not see the men in the relief expedition in a flying saucer like space ship. It might look a lot more like the Starship Enterprise or the Ship from 2001 A Space Odyssey. It's interesting to look at science fiction films from different generations and see how are conceptions of the future do change.

The story behind Forbidden Planet is a timeless one, about mortal beings trying to play God.

You can't write about Forbidden Planet without commenting on Robby the Robot. This mechanical marvel, put together by Pidgeon with the knowledge he gained from studying the Krell was quite the hit back in the day. He got a new lease on life in the sixties with the character of the Robot from Lost In Space. His scenes with Earl Holliman who plays the cook on the space ship and his complying with Earl's request for some home spirits are very funny.

Robby and the other special effects were nominated for an Oscar, but lost to The Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea. Forbidden Planet's bad luck to run up against a Hollywood founder like Cecil B. DeMille.

Classicists among you will recognize Forbidden Planet as a futuristic reworking of The Tempest which when you think about it could have been Shakespeare's one venture into science fiction.

My favorite among the cast is Warren Stevens who's sacrifice enables Leslie Nielsen to learn exactly what he's dealing with.

Never miss this one whenever it's broadcast.",Positive "I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.

In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.",Negative "This is not a good movie but I still like it. The cat Clovis is gold in a jar as well as the premise of the cats themselves - intrinsically opposed to the evil Sleepwalkers. I think there is more to this movie than people realize, basically it is very harsh, but this brusqueness can sometimes be good. It's got the corny lines, the abrupt ending and a comedic element conveyed by the bumbling policemen.

Did anyone find the incestuous element a bit disturbing? Ultimately this movie is casually and randomly acrimonious, which is quite effective, I liken it to Psycho - the relationship between the mother and son, the changing of protagonists. I think the abruptness works also, this is not a movie that you want them to lengthen, it only works if it's short.

I'm still not sure whether the director lacked depth, or whether he did these things with purpose, we know Stephen King has ability, yet I haven't even read his books, only seen some of his movies.

Anyway, I liked it. If you like harsh corny movies with 80's overtones just watch it. but don't expect too much. It really is so bad its good.",Positive "I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it.

The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job.",Positive "Many people like this movie and many more love it, but it seems that it is all for the wrong reasons. Scarface should be liked and loved but not in the way it has been or is.

Many people say the acting was over-the-top, but who better to do an over-the-top character than Al Pacino. To say that Pacino went over-the-top in here would be an understatement. Yet he does it so well, he just brings the inner devil out of you so well. His character Tony Montana was not such a great guy to begin with but his thirst for power just bring his sickness of greed to another level; an inhumane level. Sure at times Pacino seems to be a bit cartoonish and surreal but that does not at all to me seem to be a liability at all. The supporting cast served its job very well. Michelle Pfeiffer was not really at her best but she certainly fit the role she played. On the other hand Steven Bauer was at his best, still he is Steven Bauer. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was good and like Michelle Pfeiffer fit her role very well. Robert Loggia I have always enjoyed watching in just seeing him yell. Other than Pacino they were not really any standout or memorable performances. Everybody just seemed to fit their roles by being there. They did not fit in perfectly but were convincing enough.

Brian De Palma did a very good job directing this movie. Whenever an actor is able to become larger than life with his performance some credit should be given to the director and I will certainly give De Palma that. Brian De Palma, though not given the respect, is a very versatile director by my count. He knows how to direct movies according to their genres, but that at times has not turned out well. In here it does, this is by all counts a gangster movie but few are much better than this one because of De Palma.

The writing was great it was just pure Oliver Stone. When I saw the credits at the end of this movie and saw that Oliver Stone had written this I was not the least bit surprised. That is a testament to him though. I have always though of him as a great writer and to me he proves this once again with Scarface. Nobody knows how to write a surreal reality for a movie than Oliver Stone.

The music was good but not that great. It is certainly not my favorite from Giorgio Moroder. The music was a little bit too 80s-ish for me but it didn't annoy me. The cinematography was good, not amazing but really who cares with a movie like this.

This has probably been one of the most influential movies in the past 25 years but as mentioned before it is for the wrong reasons. People should realize that the character of Tony Montana is no hero, he is a monster. He is not inspiring in anyway. He is greedy, bloodthirsty, uneducated and self consumed. Yet he is a role model to many people because he is in some way or another a rebel but probably most of all because he is a deluded gangster. A vigilante would be like Mother Tereasa next to Scarface.

The good thing about this movie though is that it shows that the Tony Montanas' are not the real problem. If we or the people of authority would want to shut people like him down we could do it but we don't. In a freaky twisted way he is a necessity of our society. He is somebody you could blame everything on and fell better about yourself doing it. The Tony Montanas' of this world are the scapegoats of our society. This in no way excuses people like him. Instead it is more of a reminder that we shouldn't excuse or allow ourselves to do bad things just because we measure up or think we measure up compared better to a gangster or drug dealer. I love this movie because it is more than a corruption movie, it is a movie that in a strange way makes you self reflect.",Positive "I am actually outraged at the comment I read stating that this movie was ""boring"" and the beautiful scenery was marred by the black and white footage. It was made in 1925!!!! I think it absolutely incredible for it's time!

The journey that these people had to go through is utterly remarkable. It took them a week just to cross a river. The women carried their children in heavy wooden cradles on their backs climbing up a solid sheet of rock, sometimes barefoot in the snow. I would like to see Anybody do that now!

I thought it was a wonderful film with some truly amazing shots and an incredible story.",Positive "I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?",Negative "In a way, this film reminded me of ""Jumping Jack Flash"". Remember Whoopi Goldberg at the shredding machine? Whoopi zonked out tranquilizers? Whoopi as Blind Lemon and imitating Mick Jagger? Great moments captured on film for sure but the movie still kind of sucks, right? That's how I feel about ""Rich In Love"". A man hears his wife sing for the first time. Post-coital teenagers talk about the nature of love. Albert Finney eats ice cream out of bucket and, in another scene, has a lovely waking moment regarding his absent wife. Alfre Woodard adds another colorful character to her acting wardrobe. But there's only the whisper of a plot here and you can't wait for it to Get Moving. Only when ex-Go-Gos' Charlotte Caffey's The Graces revs up a great pop song does the picture wake up...and then it's over!

This picture is the equivalent of a lazy summer's day in the deep American South.",Positive "This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.

""Diary Of A Sex Addict"" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.",Negative "There are some nice shots in this film, it catches some of the landscapes with such a beautiful light, in fact the cinematography is probably it's best asset.

But it's basically more of a made for TV movie, and although it has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, which keeps it quite interesting viewing, there are no subtitles and key plot developments are unveiled in Spanish, so non Spanish speakers will be left a little lost.

I had it as a Xmas gift, as it's a family trait to work through the films of a actor we find talented, and Matthew Mconaughey was just awesome in ""A Time to kill"" , and the ""The Newton Boys "" so I expressed I wanted to see more of his work.

However although it says on the DVD box it is a Matthew Mconaughey film and uses this as a marketing ploy, he has a few lines and is on screen for not very minutes at the end of the film, he is basically an extra and he doesn't exactly light up the screen while he is on, so die hard fans, really not worth it from that point of view.

The films star though, Patrick McGaw is great though and very easy on the eye, and his character is just so nice and kind and caring, a true saint of a guy, he'd be well written into a ROM com.

So for true Mcconaughey acting brilliance of the ones I've seen, I'd recommend, ""A Time to kill"" , ""The Newton Boys "" ""Frailty"", ""How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"", ""Edtv"" and ""Amistad"" and avoid too ""Larger Than Life"" and ""Angels in the Outfield"" unless you feel like a kids film or have kids around as neither of these are indicative of his talent, but are quite amusing films for children, again MM is really nothing more that a supporting artist with just a few if any lines.

As for Scorpion Springit's not a bad film but it also isn't screen stealing either.",Negative """New Best Friend"" is another entry in the ""steal another woman's life"" sub-genre; the best of which are ""Single White Female"" and ""The Hand That Rocks the Cradle""; the worse of which you can catch almost any afternoon on the Lifetime Channel. For some reason this type of identity theft happens exclusively to women.

There are just two basic ways to play this type of story. You can make the woman evil at the beginning and let the audience watch knowingly as she hatches and implements her evil scheme. Or you use misdirection to make her appear a good person, as a seemingly unplanned series of events break in her favor until she is revealed to be evil in the climatic scene. Unfortunately the makers of ""New Best Friend"" could not decide how they wanted to play it and things crash and burn early. We first meet Alicia (Mia Kirshner) scamming the college's financial aid office for scholarship money. We now know that she is a bad person and will view all her subsequent activity with suspicion. But the director and editor apparently forgot that this revelation had been made and spend the next 50 minutes laying misdirection to make us think that Alicia is a good person. This introduces the only element of suspense, not about whether she is evil but about when the director and editor will wise up and stop wasting our time with transparent misdirection.

""New Best Friend"" suffers more than most from the teen movie curse of a cast too old to be portraying undergraduate students. There are really only two big parts, Hadley (Meredith Monroe) and Alicia (Kirshner). They were 31 and 26 respectively at the time of the production. It almost works for the 26 year-old Kirshner when she plays the mousy version of Alicia but it becomes glaring when she is transformed into the glamed-up version of Alicia. Monroe's casting is simply a joke, about like having Nicholette Sheridan try to pass as a classmate on ""Lizzie McGwire"". She looks much closer to a mid-life crisis than to a term paper.

The producers must have owed a lot of favors because this age issue extends to most of the supporting characters. Taye Diggs who plays the town sheriff is younger than most of the students.

The basic setup is that Hadley and two other rich party girls (played by Dominque Swain-age 21 and Rachel True-age 35) are undergrad roommates at college. They share (as their student residence) a mansion that is nicer and better furnished than the mansion on Real World-New Orleans (a premise more believable than soccer moms playing students). Alicia moves into the mansion and begins to take over Hadley's life. At least that way Swain finally gets a roommate from her own generation so the two can have a lesbian scene. Swain's supporting performance is the only good thing about ""New Best Friend"" and her love scene with Kirshner is fantastic, so cool and artsy that it doesn't fit with any of the other segments, maybe it was subcontracted out to a good director and cinematographer.

The unintentionally hilarious story is presented in a series of dreary flashbacks of rampant sex and nonstop parties, each proceeded by a shot of a comatose Alicia in a hospital bed. About half of Kirshner's screen time is spent lying motionless with a tube in her mouth. Not a good career move Mia.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.",Negative "For those of you who have read Rohinton Mistry's highly respected novel, this film will definitely impress you, because of how honorable an adaptation it is . With the exception of one minor subplot, Sturla Gunnarson's feature film debut is an almost dead-on recreation of the book (down to the last line).

For those of you who have not read the novel, this movie might be a little tricky. It is certainly not a large cinematic drama story. Instead it has a strong element of realism to it, but I would not have it any other way. The best way to describe Such a Long Journey to movie fans would be to say that it is a small scale, Hindu version of 'Fiddler On The Roof'. Instead of a Jewish/Russian milkman, the protagonist Gustad Noble is a banker in 1970's Bombay during the time of the Muslim/Hindi war with Pakistan. He is forced to deal with a number of unexpected problems in his life, including his sick daughter, his individualist eldest son, a distant friend who gets him involved with some dirty money, and an unhealthy neighborhood. The Ending is not a happy one, nor is it a sad one, but that is essentially what realism involves.

Such a Long Journey is a fine little movie, but if you want to see it, then good luck finding it. Unlike the novel, it has received very little release.",Positive "1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again.",Negative "This is one of those movies that make better trailers than full-length feature films. The concept was really cool and different, the humor was unique, I just felt there were missed opportunities to put the ""punch"" into this movie. So many lines and gags were left hanging too long, with no definite ending and really didn't leave me laughing. Wilson, Wilson, Farris & Thurman were great. Wanda Sykes was under-used in this film and needed more exposure, and more opportunities to spin her character into more screen time. 7 out of 10 for me, more of a DVD rental. Also, I was looking for some sort of a feel-good music video during the end credits, something that has become sort of a trade-mark to these romantic comedy films, a la Something About Mary, Meet the Parents but again, I was left feeling a little cheated by fact that this COULD have been a much better film with a little more music and punchier punch lines. It felt like it was RUSHED into theaters.",Positive "Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.

The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.

The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.

Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.

Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in!

Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.

It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.

My Rating: 9/10

Objectively – 9/10

Subjectively – 10/10

Eliason A.",Positive "I am amazed that movies like this can still be made. I watch all kinds of movies all the time with my friends and i can say that this is one of the best i ever seen. Never thinked that a movie of 146 minutes can make me think about it on and on.

Washington, charismatic and intense as ever, plays Creasy, a washed-up ex-counter-terrorist agent who's taken to the bottle. Once he's assigned to protect young Pita (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City, his emotional and redemptive arc is jump-started in the way only an adorable little girl can provide. Inevitably, Pita is kidnapped by thugs, and Creasy decides that most of Mexico City must pay the price for daring to take away his character's teddy-bear-clutching catalyst. Yes, he has become...a Man on Fire.

You must see this movie.",Positive "Una giornata particolare is a film which has made brilliant use of closed spaces.It is in these dull,empty spaces that the audience sees the emotional turmoil and boisterous outbursts of Ettore Scola's two leading characters.Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren play two frustrated individuals who decide to come together for some brief moments of their listless lives.It is the element of sadness associated with the narrative that makes us believe that people will take sides with characters close to them.All men would really feel sorry for Sophia Loren's character.All women would surely cry their hearts out at Marcello Mastroianni's existential plight.Disguised sexualities are also one of the key issues of this somber,poignant film.Most of the characters grapple with issues related to their own sexualities.Una giornata particolare cannot be termed as a pro gay film although it has been nicely depicted that a homosexual chap mixes well with women.This is a film for which Italian director Ettore Scola has crafted a fairly good mix of fact and fiction.His idea is to show how the arrival of Hitler changed destinies of ordinary Italian folks.A word about the courageous personnage played magnificently by great Marcello Mastroianni.He acts as a real man who does not beg for pity.He happily accepts his fate and readies himself to face the worst time of his short yet meaningful life.A true masterpiece of cinema !!!",Positive "In the winter of 1931, supposedly 12-year-old Tyler Hoechlin (as Michael Sullivan Jr.) wonders what his mobster father Tom Hanks (Michael ""Mike"" Sullivan) does for a living. Young Hoechlin follows Mr. Hanks to ""work"" one evening, and witnesses him blasting away some rival gangsters. This leads - in a VERY roundabout way - to ""Godfather""-type Paul Newman (as John Rooney) hiring independent hit-man Jude Law (as Harlen Maguire) to track down Hoechlin and Hanks, who are off to cool their heels in Chicago. Hanks thinks they will be safe with a relative, which is puzzling when you consider the characters' line of work.

Looking uncannily like Paul Peterson (""The Donna Reed Show""), Hoechlin does a terrific job for director Sam Mendes; and, getting to work with this cast makes him the luckiest young actor of 2002. But, the most striking thing about ""Road to Perdition"" is the stunning cinematography of Conrad L. Hall, which deservedly won a career capping ""Academy Award"" for the late photographer. Mr. Hall's work is truly superlative. This helps make up for the overall impression of a measured, contrived staginess to both the narrative and visuals. The deviating end is abruptly uplifting (the unrelated dog is an example of the aforementioned staginess).

******** Road to Perdition (7/12/02) Sam Mendes ~ Tom Hanks, Tyler Hoechlin, Paul Newman, Jude Law",Positive "Actually one particular person/character isn't ""right there"", but my summary line is referring to the power of the movie. And this is all achieved without any fancy camera moves and/or big production sets, but with a great story and very (believable) and good actors conveying the story (arc).

You could call it a companion piece to great japan movies/cinema (such as Tokyo Story etc.), not so much story-wise of course, but more mood-wise! Great acting, nuances in the performances that are truly gems. If you're eager to experience a touching story and want to see a movie touching you emotionally, than this is the one to go. As you have noticed (as with many of my reviews), I'm not getting into the story. There are places here at IMDb where you can look those up, I'm not one to spoiler the story whatsoever!",Positive "A schizophrenic has escaped from a NYC mental hospital and soon teachers start getting offed at St. Trinity University. New teacher Julie (Francine Forbes) has to deal with the mess of red herrings. Despite a 78 minute running time, this cheap-o slasher drags on and on until the lame finish where the person you suspect is the killer from the get go is revealed to be as such. Director Richard Haines barely breaks a sweat with some lame stalk-n-slash staging but delivers the grue the early 80s audience was probably craving. For all of our amateur anthropologists out there, this was filmed in New Yawk in early 80s so you can check out all of the culture, beliefs, and practices of living people from that far away place. The film does get some credit for offing the ""Final Girl."" You rarely see that. Also, always nice to see a horror movie where a priest is the killer. Doth thou not trust the clergy, my beloved film industry? Thankfully, this one is only a phony priest and he gets caught. He is still working the moral high ground angle though.",Negative "This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a ""Midnight Cowboy"" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco.",Positive "By some happy coincidence the same year that Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak made Alfred Hitchcock's haunting masterpiece ""Vertigo"", they also made this light comedy. Perhaps the two actors needed to do it after undergoing the heaviness of the Hitchcock film . At any rate this a great companion piece to ""Vertigo"" as it again explores a very un-likely but powerful romance. In fact the film can be seen as the flip side of ""Vertigo"" with it's happy ending. Here again Novak undergoes a transformation, in Vertigo she essentially plays two women and here she 'transforms' from witch to mortal. Stewart is again bewitched and for awhile tormented by his love for her. Unlike Vertigo the two come together in ""Bell Book and Candle"" , a perfect antidote for the Hitcock movie. Again the dynamics of love and attraction are examined but in an altogether different vein. The cast is terrific. Lemmon hilarious as Novak's warlock brother and Elsa Lancaster giving a classic performance as the Aunt. Ernie Kovacs as the alcoholic cult writer and of course Hermoine Gingold playing Novak's competitor are all great. The scene with Stewart drinking the potion is comedy at it's best. Anyone who has seen Vertigo or even if you haven't should see this memorable light comedy.",Positive "Although in many ways I agree with the other reviewers comments. I find that the plot and idea are very good. Many of the supporting actors were very good. The fatal problem with this film is Ellen Pompeo. I am sure, I have never seen a less talented ""actor"" How this person has ever been in a film or on television, I cannot imagine. In my opinion she would be better as a greater at a Wal-Mart. To see a person with this low level of talent involved in paying roles, does beg the question...... ""Who does she know""? I would very much like to see this film re-made with some talent. I do not fault the writer for the failure of this film to be worth the time to view it.",Negative "This is a quirky movie that the Brits do so well. Low budget, cameo type roles, well executed. The story is a little weak, a recently widowed Judi Dench decides to round up the ""blonde bombshells' a all (well almost all) girl band who performed during the war in London. The obligatory son/daughter who thinks she's gone potty. I did like the way the movie lets young people see that they don't have a monopoly on feelings, love and even lust! That the ""old wrinklies"" can have a good laugh too. Judi Dench was superb as always, a pity we didn't get to see more of the other ""blonde bombeshells, the end was a little rushed I thought. I kept thinking as I watched that David Jason would have made an even better Patrick than Ian Holm, although he was quite adequate as the ""transvestite"" drummer. All in all a cheery movie well worth a night in with the girls :)",Positive "Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.

Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.

I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.

And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.

It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.",Negative "Hmmmm, want a little romance with your mystery? This has it. I think if the romance was ditched this would have made for a better movie. But how could the romance be ditched when the story's borrowed from something called a Harlequin Romance novel, whatever the heck that is. Had the romance been ditched, the story might have been a little too weak. The mystery here wasn't too bad, quite interesting but nothing on the level of Mission Impossible international espionage. Oh well. I thought Mel Harris was pretty good; her short skirts, i think, added some sex appeal... but this Rob Stewart guy probably could have been better cast, maybe with a more well known TV movie actor. The directing was decent and the writing could have been improved on - both could have been a little edgier, a little darker, more adventurous. One thing that was great about this was the use of real European locations. That could easily have been changed so this could have been filmed in Canada but they really were in magnificently beautiful places like Budapest. Possibly a drawback was the director and/or cinematographer's choice to frame certain shots picture postcard perfect. Not good. Had this been a more dramatic motion picture shot for the big screen, picture postcard perfect scenes really need to take a backseat and just be a nice part of the background. This was just a tv-movie, though, so they had to add some Ummmph to the picture and some of that Ummmph came from the scenery. Overall, twasn't really a bad movie. I'll tell you what, this was absolutely the best Canadian-Hungarian production I have ever seen! (and the only that i know of.) I hereby proclaim this to be a mediocre made-for-tv movie, giving it a grade of C-",Positive "The movie is just plain fun....maybe more fun for those of us who were young and fans of ""The Ramones"" around the time the film was made. I've watched the film over and over, by myself and with friends, and it is still fresh and funny. At the risk of being too serious, the concept of being a big fan of a certain band is timeless, and high school students boredom with drudgery of some classes is just as timeless.

And, the film has some gem lines/scenes.....references to how our ""permanent record"" in high school will follow us through life. (Let me assure you I've been out of high school for, uhhh, some years and it's not following me).....the famous ""static"" line (""I'm getting some static"".....""Not as much as you're going to get"", as Principal Togar approaches).....the school board member who is so decrepit he's attended by nurses....the Nazi Hall Monitors love for a ""body search"" ......Principal Togar announcing, ""I give you the final solution"", and burning the Ramones records (note: records were what came before CD's) ....and of course Joey Ramone noting, ""Things sure have changed since we got kicked out of high school"", followed by Togar asking ""Do your parents know you're Ramones?""

Just one piece of advice.....don't look up where the stars are now.....Joey Ramone sadly died young. Dey Young, who was a major hottie in the film, today reminds us we all age....PJ Soles career never advanced as we might have expected......... Marla Rosenfield, as one the other students, apparently appeared only in this film (one of my male friends dies over her every time we watch the film), though I submit her performance was more than adequate and should have brought her more teen film roles. And, does anyone know what happened to DJ Don Steele?

So, watch and enjoy.....don't think....just have FUN!",Positive "First I want to clarify that the average user's inability to appreciate imagination is appalling. What makes this show so unique is the hyper-reality it creates. You don't need to know why Ned can bring people back from the dead, or why it can only be for a minute. Where has the wonderment of childhood whimsical tales gone, much like A Wrinkle in Time.

I say it is refreshingly original because it is a polar opposite to the masses of lay-it-all-out television that leaves no room for imagination or wonder.

It's nice to add a bit of escapism to the television experience.

The hyper-reality is my favorite aspect of the show. The 1950's-esque setting, the innocent and rare characters, and the scenery and physical setting which are not meant to be taken as pure reality.

This show masks the morbid nature of death, while others embrace it. While entertaining, other television shows have taken a back shelf to this series. It truly has restored a sense of curiosity, imagination and wonder to television.

Pushing Daisies quickly made it to the top of my list.",Positive "Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.

Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.

Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.",Negative "The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.

The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.

Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.

There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.

A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.

The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.

The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.

Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.

No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life.",Negative "I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.

What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round.

When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.",Negative "The movie may be great. I just watched it last night, but feel unable to give an honest opinion of it because I read the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that I was disappointed with the film. If you plan to watch ""Of Human Bondage,"" don't read the book beforehand. On the other hand, the book is so good, and contains so much more than the love affair Phillip has with Mildred, you could still enjoy it after seeing the movie. I do not make this claim lightly. I average reading a book every 4 days, and read such disparate authors as Danielle Steel, Ovid, Faulkner, Plato, and Shakespeare. ""Of Human Bondage"" gets my vote as one of the top ten novels ever written.",Positive "I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.",Negative "Everyone plays their part pretty well in this ""little nice movie"". Belushi gets the chance to live part of his life differently, but ends up realizing that what he had was going to be just as good or maybe even better. The movie shows us that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities we have, not the ones we do not or cannot have. If U can get this movie on video for around $10, it´d be an investment!",Positive "this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer.

you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything.

what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . .

why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.

i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too.

big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing.",Negative "I consider myself a huge movie buff. I was sick on the couch and popped in this film. Right from the opening to the end I watched in awe at these great actors, i'd never seen, say great word. The filming was beautiful. It was just what I needed. I hope that this message is heard over any bad comments written by others. The Director has a heart and it beats with his actors throughout. Thanku for making a film like this one. Just wonderfully awkward, beautiful kind characters who are flawed and graceful all at once. Just great. I can't submit this without 10 lines in total so I will simply go on to say that I wish for more from this director, more from all the actors in this film and more from the writer. I didn't want it to end. The end",Positive "In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.",Negative "What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit.

Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.

Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.

But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.

I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour.",Negative "Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's ""Of Human Bondage"" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.

While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).

Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, ""I don't mind,"" a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.

Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah.

Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.

The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do ""anything [he] wants,"" a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.

Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.

Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.

Available on DVD.

9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances)",Positive "If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!",Positive "One of the first OVA's (""original video animation"") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.

The ""heroes"" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a ""if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns"" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase ""loose cannons"".

Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.

The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.

The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...

Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended.",Positive "This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: ""Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does..."" Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk.

The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!

This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.

This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:""Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it..."" ...and I ended up just loving it!",Positive "The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.

Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. (""Tricia Tanak Is Dead"" is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new ""rescuers"" such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left.",Positive "Just in time to capitalize on the long-awaited movie version of ""Dreamgirls"" is the DVD release of this semi-forgotten 1976 musical melodrama that also takes the rise of the Supremes as its inspiration. Released five years before the Broadway opening of ""Dreamgirls"" and partially set in the same period, it has a predominantly black cast and a story revolving around an up-and-coming girl group, and that's where the resemblance basically ends. Written by Joel Schumacher well before he became a big-league director of mainstream studio product (""Batman Forever"", ""The Phantom of the Opera""), this movie seems grittier on the surface. True to form, however, Schumacher weakens the storyline and character development by injecting an abundance of clichés and eye-rolling one-liners. With little affinity for staging musical numbers, Sam O'Steen, a highly regarded film editor but neophyte director, helms the production like a low-budget TV-movie with a frustratingly episodic structure.

The story follows three Harlem sisters - sexy Sister, self-righteous Delores and sweet Sparkle - as they sing in the church choir, meet smooth-talking but well-intentioned boys Stix and Levi, and then find their first taste of success as a singing group - first as a sweater-wearing quintet called the Hearts and then as a glitzy trio known as Sister and the Sisters. But naturally there are problems beyond the silly name for the group - Sister gets involved with nasty drug dealer Satin Struthers who beats her and turns her into a cocaine junkie; Levi goes to prison for getting caught in a drug pick-up for Satin; Stix gets frustrated by failure and unwisely turns to some Jewish mobsters for financial help; Delores just gets plain fed up; and poor little Sparkle has to decide what kind of future she wants. A big plus is that R&B great Curtis Mayfield wrote the atmospheric songs, some catchy and one, ""Look Into Your Heart"", a real winner.

The solid cast does its best under the contrived circumstances. Lonette McKee's valiant attempt to make Sister a tragic figure is undercut by some of the ham-fisted plot turns, including a sad Billie Holliday-like turn at the mike. Before they hit it big on primetime TV, Philip Michael Thomas and Dorian Harewood portray Stix and Levi with boyish vitality if not much credibility. The best work comes from Mary Alice in a relatively silent turn as the girls' patient mother and a pre-""Fame"" Irene Cara who effortlessly exudes sincerity in the title role (though her costumer and hair stylist should be shot for the hideous look she achieves in the final scene). The DVD just comes with the original theatrical trailer complete with an unctuous voice-over by DJ Casey Kasem and a bonus CD of five of the film's songs performed not by the original cast but by Aretha Franklin off her 1976 recording of the soundtrack. It's not a terrible movie, just an interesting if lacking curio that happens to cover the same ground as ""Dreamgirls"".",Negative "A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.

The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.

Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.

For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.

While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.

The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.

Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver",Positive "This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other ""soaring"" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and ""joking"" as is rampant in this film.",Negative "Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie.

It was so slow and awfully strange.

Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent.

Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry!

Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake.

Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him.

Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes.

I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling.

I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of ""The greatest actresses of our time"" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy.

Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10",Negative "Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of ""Corky Romano."" But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of ""Joe Dirt"" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film?

As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like ""Corky Romano."" I didn't like Falk's last movie ""Made"" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role.

I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right.

My score: 3 (out of 10)",Negative "Dark comedy? Gallows humor? How does one make a comedy out of murder? It can be risky business as the viewer is required to let go of their moral values and laugh at the antics of a man who kills people. So, the story has be rock solid with a good dash of suspended reality in order to make it work. So, Pierce Brosnan, the Irishman's answer to 007 is now cast as a chain-smoking, sex-addicted alcoholic who kills people for a living and is having a life crisis. He meets a struggling businessman, Greg Kinnear, and after a rocky beginning, he learns that he needs a friend. But, Greg's happily married to Hope Davis and Brosnan sees in him the basic things he doesn't have, love, home and a life. Add character actor, Philip Baker Hall as the hit-man's manager and we're off to the races. Brosnan is wonderfully crass and crude as the anti-hero and Kinnear delightful as his counterpart, the very human businessman. Hope Davis adds a sparkle as Kinnear's very conventional wife who is fascinated with this derelict who drifts into their lives. The ending is delightful and with some surprise to it. You should leave the theater feeling, at least, partly good-- if you're able to suspend being aghast at killing people.",Positive "I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.

As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.",Negative "Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.

Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.

When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.

Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.

This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from ""The Exorcist."" The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.

The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.

9/10",Positive "I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four ""mini"" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.

The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.

The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.",Negative "Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like ""please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!""",Negative "Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to ""do something about it."" I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.",Negative "when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.

I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.

Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.

And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is ""If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance"", you know time capsule stuff.

Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.

The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said ""hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people"". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.

Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.",Negative "If this film was a comedy, I would have given it a 10. Oh my, where do I begin? Put it this way -- I've seen lots of terrible horror films, but this one makes Troll 2 look like freakin' Saving Private Ryan. It's as if a group of porn filmmakers decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that). Everything about this film is simply terrible: the musical score (someone shoot the guy who invented the Yamaha keyboard), the script, the directing, the cinematography, the acting. There simply are no words to describe this. Oh wait, yes there are: Holy $*%!.",Negative "About a year ago I finally gave up on American television. I thought of giving up television completely until a friend who had lived in England showed me some programs that included The Office, Extras, Blackadder, and The League of Gentlemen. It was then that I decided to switch to British television. Among all the shows listed above, The League of Gentlemen is easily the most dark and twisted of them all, providing guilty laughs and material not found in any other comedy I've seen yet. Characters included are the most unhappily married couple, a butcher that puts ingredients in the meat that go unsaid (probably for the best), a deranged couple that look over a local shop that only caters to local people, and the worst veterinarian ever. This program is one of the best I've seen.",Positive "This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.

I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.

In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics.",Positive "I'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.

A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.

The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.

In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement.",Negative "Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.

Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.

A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.

This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.

The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.

Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578

I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.

8/10",Positive "This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.",Negative "In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.

The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.",Negative "While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the ""Gun Nut"" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the ""must see"" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.",Negative "Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution … yes you guessed it right, again…. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you.",Negative "One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.

Terrific songs include ""Let Yourself Go,"" ""Let's Face the Music,"" and ""Putting All My Eggs in One Basket."" The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings ""Let Yourself Go"" with Grable among the backup singers.

Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. ""Get Thee Behind Me"" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings ""But Where Are You?"" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, ""Let's Face the Music and Dance"" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.

Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.

Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with ""Let Yourself Go"".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.

Fun all the way, although I got tired of ""We Joined the Navy"" after the third time....",Positive "No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.

Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.

",Negative "After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders.""The Bat People"" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.",Negative I found the storyline in this movie to be very interesting. Best of all it left out the usual sex and violence (they're getting old) inserted in many movies. The movie was well done in its flashbacks to days gone by in that area of the Southwest. The acting was also superb.,Positive "I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with ""There Will Be Blood"" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks ""how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?"" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying ""please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!"" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!",Negative "Being from Canada, I cannot say whether this film is original in the context of Danish cinema - unfortunately, we, here, do not get to see many Danish films in a year! I also cannot comment on Clausen's acting in the context of his other roles - I personally found him quite believable - a touching monstrosity of a man, this Jorgen! As for the actor who played Kenneth - why would his participation in a TV show rule him out as an actor - aren't we over such elitist attitudes? International viewers unaware of his Big Brother participation will find him a fair actor.

In spite of the movie's faults (the writing could have been subtler in some instances), I do subscribe to what one could call the 'message' of the film - namely art's essential role in everyday life, art as healing force. Art, as Nietzsche said, sanctifies the lie ('Kunst heiligt die Luege') - it is a holy lie: the wedding scene is fabulous in this sense - a theatrical, not religious, wedding, celebrating love and life as play...",Positive "In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps?",Positive "After some difficulty, Johnny Yuma arrives at his ailing uncle's ranch to take over day to day operations, only to find out that the old man has been murdered by his beautiful gold-digger wife and the woman's vicious brother.

Good production values, a likable performance by Mark Damon, and a breezy action packed script combine to make this an entertaining, if not exceptionally deep, above average addition to the spaghetti western genre.

Co-star Rosalba Neri is one of the hottest European babes ever to grace the screen. Here she's absolutely perfect as the cold-hearted user (and abuser) of weak men.

Damon and Neri appeared together in at least one other picture, The Devil's Wedding Night, a pretty good horror movie that's of particular interest for those of you that want to see what's underneath Rosalba's dresses.",Positive """Girlfight"" follows a project dwelling New York high school girl from a sense of futility into the world of amateur boxing where she finds self esteem, purpose, and much more. Although the film is not about boxing, boxing is all about the film. So much so you can almost smell the sweat. Technically and artistically a good shoot with an sense of honesty and reality about it, ""Girlfight"" is no chick flick and no ""Rocky"". It is, rather, a very human drama which even viewers who don't know boxing will be able to connect with.",Positive "The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul ""sampled"" Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed.",Positive "Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10",Positive "A charming romantic comedy. The plot is a little too complicated--I tried to summarize it three times and I can't. Suffice to say it's worth seeing. The movie is funny, beautiful--the plot is totally unrealistic but it works. Everybody in the movie is so nice and everything looks so great--it creates a sweet, romantic feel through the entire film.

The acting is great--Robert Downey Jr. and Cybill Shepherd are in top form and enjoying every second of it. Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson are just OK but fine. If you're a sucker for good, sweet sentimental films (like me), catch this one. Also Downey looks great in his underwear!

Extra bonuses--the title song sung by Johnny Mathis and another great song ""After All"" sung by Cher and Peter Cetera.",Positive This is a pretty well known one so i won't get too deep into it. The basic story is about two teens who find out about a slimy alien blob of goo that arrives to earth via meteor. Human contact with this slime ball burns through flesh like acid. It also absorbs human bodies making it grow bigger. Nobody believes the teens (Steeve McQueen and his girlfriend) and when they finally do it seems that the blob can't be stopped. It's really well done for it's age and unlike a lot of other 50's flicks the pace is pretty fast. The story is very unique making it and a must see for any fan of old sci-fi and monster movies. If you can dig the gooey gore of 80s horror be sure to check out the remake from '88 as well.,Positive "In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.

Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from ""The White Balloon"", ""The Mirror"" and ""The Circle"", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available",Positive "A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to ""The End""..",Negative "Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.

The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.

For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like ""Sixteen Candles"" where the ""f"" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.

I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.

""The Dream Machine"" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.

My score: 7 (out of 10)",Positive "Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy ""Heaven Can Wait"" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as ""Heaven Can Wait"" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from ****",Negative "I personally watched this to see the footage of the 60's and 70's. It was fascinating to learn how the drug movement essentially started and became pop culture and an eventual uncompromising force in life. The interviews of the classic rock stars are titillating and humorous. You feel like you're in on a secret and nodding your head at the same time...because it feels so good and familiar. I loved it, all segments from 60's-present day. I highly recommend this for all aspects, including rock music, the hipper movement, politics and good 'ol history. I check marked the box saying this contains a spoiler, only because I have no idea what some might consider a spoiler or not in this regards, since I discussed what's in all 4 segments, so just wanted to be safe.",Positive "It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.

Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.

The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...",Negative "(aka: DEMONS III)

Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.

An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.

Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.

But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.

The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee.

The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.

3 out of 10

",Negative "This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential.",Positive "When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.",Negative This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago.,Positive "Charles McDougall's resume includes directing episodes on 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', Queer as Folk', 'Big Love', 'The Office', etc. so he comes with all the credentials to make the TV film version of Meg Wolitzer's novel SURRENDER, DOROTHY a success. And for the most part he manages to keep this potentially sappy story about sudden death of a loved one and than manner in which the people in her life react afloat.

Sara (Alexa Davalos) a beautiful unmarried young woman is accompanying her best friends - gay playwright Adam (Tom Everett Scott), Adam's current squeeze Shawn (Chris Pine), and married couple Maddy (Lauren German) and Peter (Josh Hopkins) with their infant son - to a house in the Hamptons for a summer vacation. The group seems jolly until a trip to the local ice creamery by Adam and Sara) results in an auto accident which kills Sara. Meanwhile Sara's mother Natalie Swedlow (Diane Keaton) who has an active social life but intrusively calls here daughter constantly with the mutual greeting 'Surrender, Dorothy', is playing it up elsewhere: when she receives the phone call that Sara is dead she immediately comes to the Hamptons where her overbearing personality and grief create friction among Sara's friends. Slowly but surely Natalie uncovers secrets about each of them, thriving on talking about Sara as though doing so would bring her to life. Natalie's thirst for truth at any cost results in major changes among the group and it is only through the binding love of the departed Sara that they all eventually come together.

Diane Keaton is at her best in these roles that walk the thread between drama and comedy and her presence holds the story together. The screenplay has its moments for good lines, but it also has a lot of filler that becomes a bit heavy and morose making the actors obviously uncomfortable with the lines they are given. Yes, this story has been told many times - the impact of sudden death on the lives of those whose privacy is altered by disclosures - but the film moves along with a cast pace and has enough genuine entertainment to make it worth watching. Grady Harp",Positive "Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.

What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, ""In Cold Blood"" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.

Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.

Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.

After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.

Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, ""In Cold Blood"" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night?",Positive "Saw this flick on ENCW last nite for the third or fourth time. Enjoyed it so much I ordered the DVD. This really is a standout and of course the first of the Mann-Stewart pairings. More here than the usual oater, although not quite as powerful as The Searchers. Lots of obvious symbolism about achieving manhood but mainly it's the acting by Stewart, his partner Millard Mitchell, Shelly Winters and the Waco Johnny Dean- Dan Duryea. Steve Miller (not The Joker) is interesting as a handsome would be hero who's interested in Lola but too yellow . Like Stewart in The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance, he's practically reduced to putting on an apron and serving his enemies coffee. Decaf no doubt. Tony Curtis from the Bronx Cavalry and Rock Hudson behaving like no Indian I've seen on screen have interesting cameos.

Special performances by John McIntire as a too lucky card dealing/gun trader who hangs out at a very low grade Western version of Rick's American Cafe. Nobody wants to spend the night there. Jay C. Flippens out over a kiss from Lola (Winters) and has some nice scenes with Stewart before he gets to Bend of the River and Far Country. Will Geer as Wyatt Earp and the Indian Chief who takes Walter Brennan's teeth from him in Red River are pleasant sightings. This is the kind of western that only Stewart, not Wayne nor Scott could have pulled off. Worth the shot, I repeat. :-)",Positive "This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a ""sleeper"", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie?",Positive "When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this ""horror"" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities.",Negative "The scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute...",Negative "This movie is mostly chase scenes and special effects. It is very weak on plot. Most of the computer talk was just mumbo-jumbo. I watched this because I was a big fan of the original War Games movie which was based mostly on computer fact and real computer terminology. This movie had none of that. Most of the computer scenes were not only impossible and highly unrealistic of real computers and networks, but just lame. It is like it was written by somebody who has no comprehension of real computers.

The ripley game was lame and was essentially just an arcade game. No real hacking, so what was the point? Movie was boring. Lame sequel.",Negative "i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of ""movie""",Negative "One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****",Negative "Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the ""romance"" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including ""You've Got Mail"", the recent update of ""Shop"") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of ****",Positive "I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as ""Blair Witch"" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.",Negative "I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.

It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.

I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?

My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience.",Positive "Far richer in texture and character than even the classics from the 30's and 50's. George C. Scott was born to be Scrooge, just as he was born to be Patton. Mr. Scott will be known as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. The character of Scrooge as played by Mr. Scott seemed to jump off the screen. Scott as Scrooge brought an richer, more robust, yet a more deeply moving Scrooge to the screen than any of his predecessors in the role of the meanest man in 18th century London. Mr. Scott seemed to bring Scrooge to a more personal, understandable yet highly conflicted level; his role was acted with the great authority Scott always bring to the screen: yet his usual bellicose voice would sometimes be brought to a whisper, almost as a soliloquy, as he would berate the Christmas holiday in one breath, yet reveal his own human frailty in his next line. He could portray the sour and crusty Scrooge, and a misunderstood, sympathetic Scrooge all in the same scene.

Truly a remarkable performance by a giant of his generation.",Positive "Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.

PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret.",Positive "Can I be as simple and primitive in my evaluations as to simply say ""I liked it""? It's reasonably funny by bits, it got great stars and it's gorgeous to look at. The songs (there are about two which are then repeated) are forgettable, but they get a healthy ironic treatment (such as the terribly handsome Mr Fairbanks exploding into frenzied Wagnerian version of the tender ballad Miss Grable has just rendered); there isn't much dancing with all the 1861 crinolines draped around Miss Grable, and the comedy might be a bit heavy handed, but the result still is very uplifting. The photography (including real outdoor shots which are a thrill) is amazing, playing around with different shades of lush heavy gold. Miss Grable is a bit past her prime and on the plumpish side, but still fresh and comfortable in this continental ""olde worlde"" comedy. It's pretty much along the line of ""Down to Earth"" with Rita Hayworth, and that one tends to be rather disliked by many. So I suppose several people would deem ""That Lady in Ermine"" to be outdated and stuffy. But it's a fairy tale, and these tend to move along at a certain paste anyhow. My suggestion is - just enjoy the artwork, the costumes, the witty script and everything else this film has to offer, and stop complaining. The film has been released on DVD in Germany, with both German and English soundtrack.",Positive "Ugh! Another one of those ""fooled by the cover"" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.

I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.

Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.

The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.

What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.

What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.

People, don't waste your time on this one.",Negative "It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.

In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.",Negative "Nina Foch insists that ""My Name is Julia Ross"" in this 1945 film noir also starring Dame May Witty and George Macready. It's short, and because it is, the film suffers. It could have stood to have been a good fifteen minutes to a half hour longer.

When I was growing up, Foch was a fixture on television, playing a neurotic woman, the wife with the cheating husband, the nervous wreck. She became one of the great acting teachers in Los Angeles. Here, she's a pretty young ingenue playing the title role. Julia answers an ad for a secretary and is hired immediately by Mrs. Hughes and her son Ralph. Little does she know - though we learn immediately - that the employment agent is a front, set up to get just the right woman for this assignment, a woman with no family and no boyfriend.

It's a live-in situation; once Julia gets to the house, she's drugged, and when she wakes up, she's told she's Mrs. Hughes and not allowed to leave.

The acting is very good. Low budget but still entertaining - some things, particularly at the end, happen way too quickly, which is why I said the movie is too short. Nevertheless, I recommend it.",Positive "I really liked BATMAN: DEAD END, I thought that it had a theatrical feel to it and that given a chance Collora could make a fine film. This trailer didn't quite give me the same impression. The story line, or potential story line, was quite good but due to the acting and special effects left me feeling like this would have made a good TV movie or television show.

First, Michael O'Hearn is not that good a Superman. I actually thought he, in his brief appearance, made a decent Clark Kent. Sorry, I just don't think of SuperMan as being that buff. The suit Kent wore masked his size. Batman may have the body of a bodybuilder but not Superman. Supes is toned no doubt but not bulk. Anyway, I didn't care for all his posing and his transformation from Kent to Superman seemed cheezy. Now this may not be just O'Hearn's fault, Collora may have to take some of the credit for poor scripting and direction.

Second, the special effects for flying were cheezy. Superman flies through the sky. If was obvious that this Superman flew close to the ground, with the telephone cables and buildings visible above him. I don't think there were any full body shots of Superman flying. Evidently the harness and rigging supporting O'Hearn must have been located on his lower torso.

All in all it was a good trailer. I'd probably pay to see a film, if ever made, and would be sure to catch it on television. The story line, an alliance between Lexcorp and Wayne Industries, Superman jealous of Lois's attraction to Wayne, Lex and Twoface teaming to beat Superman and the joining of forces between Batman & Superman is a good one. I'm sure with a larger budget and approval for a full film Collora and company, even O'Hearn could deliver a decent film. Certainly one better than the most of the comic based crap coming out of Hollywood lately.",Positive Some fraud girl tries to compete in the big leagues of motorcross by swiching places with her brother. She gets to the top by lying and manipulation. She should have been disqualified. The movie promotes lying and cheating to win. also the idea of a 9 yr old mechanic is absurd. it takes many many years to get good. Go back to the tonka toys.,Negative "Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of ""Booty Call"", ""Pumpkinhead"", ""Swarm"", and ""The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh"". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question ""who was so stupid to finance such a whale?"" But then, had good judgment prevailed and ""Final Justice"" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in ""Mystery Science Theatre 3000""!",Negative "I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.

After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.

The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.

I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD.

Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the ""violent sh*t"" films) avoid at any cost!",Negative "What are the odds of a ""Mermaid"" helium balloon traveling from Yuba City, Ca.(on Nov 8th,1993) and landing 4 Days later,(on Nov. 12) in MERMAID, Prince Edward Island, Canada.(Approx. 4000 miles). This is a great movie. It is based on a true story. This movie helps not only children cope with losses, but older people as well. Hope everyone will enjoy it!!! Rhonda",Positive "Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families.",Positive "It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life.

But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds.

There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair.",Positive "With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.

The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as ""The Giant Monster Gamera"" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But ""Gammera the Invincible"" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself.

""Gammera the Invincible"" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.

And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.

Most movies in the genre that ""Gammera the Invincible"" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.

It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.",Negative "The first time I saw this, I didn't laugh too much. At the time, I was only about fifteen years old and thought that maybe some of the deeper humor was too mature for me to understand at the time. I had the same reaction when I viewed it a second time a few months ago, and this time, it was because Felix's aborted suicide attempt at the beginning of the movie kind of darkened the movie a bit. This scene made some of the things Oscar said and did to Felix later in the movie seem needlessly cruel, and their personality clashes weren't as amusing as they could have been. Had I not already known the story, I would have been worried that some of Oscar's antics to Felix might push him over the edge. As it was, it didn't make me laugh or smile like the television show with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall did. Still, all in all, a pretty good movie and it spawned one of the greatest sitcoms on television. 7 out of 10.",Positive "I cheer for films that fill in subject matter gaps in world cinema. So after watching the trailer for ""Water Lilies,"" I expected to like this film because I thought I'd stumbled on something unique: a movie that honestly portrays teen lesbian love - sort of a female version of ""Beautiful Thing.""

The main characters are young French women 15 years old. Marie is slender, reticent and pretty in a tomboyish way; Floriane is outgoing, athletic and beautiful; and Anne is loyal, pudgy and behaviorally immature. The erotic interrelationship between Marie and Floriane is always simmering in this movie, if not at the surface, then just below it.

""Water Lilies,"" however, is not about the dawning of lesbian love upon two teens; it is about sexual frustration, suffering, ennui, teens working at cross-purposes and - in at least two instances - joyless, mechanical sex. It also proves that screenwriters and film-makers mar their own creations when they become too manipulative.

In the extra features on the ""Lord of the Flies"" DVD, director Peter Brook says, ""French cynicism starts with the arousal of sex,"" meaning the French regard children as angels while they regard adolescents and adults with a pervasive cynicism. Part of the downfall of this film is film-maker Celine Sciamma has gulped a mighty dose of this cynicism.

""Where is the joy?"" I asked myself while watching this film. Yes, first love can be painful and frustrating, but it can also be joyful and triumphantly erotic in a fresh, life-affirming way. These positive aspects are missing from this movie; there is no balance.

Organically, this movie wants to be a poignant celebration of first love. But Sciamma is too impressed with her own cynicism and cleverness and ruins the film. First, what is the point of showing only the plump girl nude? I know there is an established tradition of tasteful teen nudity in European cinema, as evidenced by films like ""The Slingshot; The Rascals; The Devil, Probably; The Little Thief; Murmur of the Heart; Friends; Beau Pere"" and ""Europa, Europa""; but this instance is a petty authorial intrusion - ""See, audience, I can make a film where I show only the unattractive person nude."" Either no nudity or evenly distributed nudity would've been an honest way to go.

There is a scene in a club where Floriane and Marie are dancing. What follows next is not just Floriane cynically manipulating Marie; it is film-maker Sciamma cynically manipulating her audience.

Perhaps the biggest betrayal of authenticity and organic honesty takes place when Floriane warns Marie she's about to request something that is ""not normal."" Marie understandably asks, ""Who cares about being normal?"" Then Sciamma plays false with her audience and the hurtling momentum of the movie, because Floriane's request is a phony, derivative and substitute question - not the authentic, heartfelt question the movie, Marie's character and the viewers who've invested their time deserve.

Here are also two moments which clank falsely on the viewer's nerves: 1) Since when do the French - of all people - take baths wearing bathing suits, and with a turtle to boot? 2) What teen - of any nationality - would chomp down on an apple core that's been thrown in the garbage in order to get a taste of the beloved's mouth?

The three main actresses are promising and, if they find better vehicles for their talents, may become excellent actors. Louise Blachere (Anne) is the best actress in terms of technique and could have a successful career in supporting roles. Adele Haenel (Floriane) could become a leading lady, or a bombshell, or both. Pauline Acquart (Marie) possesses an intensity and magnetism which are unmistakable. In the future, she could play everything from an emotionally crippled librarian to a mysteriously sensual seductress to a reluctant politician riding a meteoric rise in acclaim.

All in all, ""Water Lilies"" was very disappointing. Will an honest film-maker please make an authentic movie about two young women falling in love! No - not necessarily for the sake of this middle-aged guy - but so young lesbian girls can have something of quality they can watch and identify with. And yes, to fill a subject matter gap in world cinema.",Negative "Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling ""feet foremost through the floor into an empty space.""",Positive "This movie wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.",Negative "(Only minor spoilers except as noted).

I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb ""Devil's Backbone"", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.

What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery (""…if I can't have you nobody can….""). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.

In Britain, in several of our notorious ""serial killer"" or ""sex killer"" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: ""No, she didn't"". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says ""you know what I mean…."" thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.

(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.

I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but – Lecter aside – it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).

This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.

It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made.",Negative This was one of the best war movies I've seen because it focuses on the characters more then the actual war. All of the cast do an excellent job and because most of them are relative unknowns it makes everything seem more believable. The camera footage is great is so was the pacing and editing. This movie will actually get to you and causes the audience to care for the charcters.,Positive "Though it had the misfortune to hit the festival circuit here in Austin (SXSW Film) just as we were getting tired of things like Shakespeare in Love, and Elizabeth, this movie deserves an audience. An inside look at the staging of ""The Scottish Play"" as actors call ""Macbeth"" when producing it to avoid the curse, this is a crisp, efficient and stylish treatment of the treachery which befalls the troupe. With a wonderfully evocative score, and looking and sounding far better than its small budget would suggest, this is a quiet gem, not world-class, but totally satisfying.",Positive "A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.

There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.

Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.

This is a wonderful, unsung romance.

Grade: A+",Positive "this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together.

watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.

and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!!",Positive "The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks ""But what about the weekends?"" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: ""Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?"" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised ""no guns, no drugs, no corsets."" I thought, ""great"". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: ""I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!""

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.",Negative "This is not my favorite WIP (""Women in Prison""), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a ""banana republic"" like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though.",Positive "In the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set)

DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link",Negative "Turkish Cinema has a big problem. Directors aren't interested in global cinema. They are local and folkloric, but want to be international. This brings kitsch results such this movie.

Film has jokes translated to Spanish from Turkish and they don't have any meaning for non-Turkish audiences. Even for Turkish audiences after 10 years.

Players, even Ferhan SENSOY have a worse acting than average. They act like puppets.

Movie was shot in Cuba, but nothing includes about Cuba. So Cuba is thought like a banana republic.

Waste of money, waste of time.",Negative "This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary ""An inconvenient truth"" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called ""EARTH"".",Positive "Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",Negative "Forget that this is a ""B"" movie. Forget that it is in many ways outdated. Instead give writer-director Ida Lupino much deserved credit for addressing a subject which at the time (1950) was taboo in Hollywood. To my knowledge, this was the first film to address the subject of rape and the emotional and mental effects that that crime has upon its victims.

Although much of the cast's acting is pedestrian at best, Mala Powers, who at the time was eighteen or nineteen, gives an excellent performance throughout as the traumatized young woman, Ann, who tries to run away from her ""shame."" Based on her work in this film, I'm surprised that she did not have a more successful acting career. Tod Andrews, too, has some fine moments as the minister who reaches out to help her.

Ms Lupino, obviously working on a limited budget, was still able to create some memorable scenes such as the pursuit through the streets and alleys leading to the rape, and the police lineup following it. And, she created a bittersweet ending which left me wondering if Ann really could ever have a normal life again.",Positive "One of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.

This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie.",Negative "An interesting thriller that has Paul Winfield as a detective on the case of a murder. Paul Winfield was an underrated actor who pulled off all his roles with such ease, it was hard to tell the man was even acting. Maybe most known by younger viewers as the voice/narrator of ""City Confidential"", Winfield ends his career with a so-so movie; but as always, Winfield shines. A treat to watch.

Erika Eliniak is well, Erika Eliniak, nice to look at but leaves a lot to be desired in the acting department. Though, to be fair, this is one of her better efforts.

Bottom line: a watchable thriller that shouldn't be missed by any Paul Winfield fan. A decent telefilm to help send Paul Winfield off to celluloid heaven. What an actor. He will be missed.",Positive "Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this ""modern"" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the ""Twinkle in Your Eye"" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.

Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all.",Positive "Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day ""My Family"". Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. ""Bloody Thatcher"" possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of ""catherine Tate"" ""the office"" ""little Britain"" and bring back the classics!",Positive "I watched the entire movie recognizing the participation of William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, and Desiree Nosbusch. I'm glad that I had no idea of the presence of Peter Weller. At the end of the movie I said ""THAT was Peter Weller?"" Kudos to Mr. Weller for an outstanding performance. Weller played a major character, and his performance was such that I didn't even recognize him.

Overall the plot was bad, the writing was bad, and the performances, aside from those of Nosbusch and Weller, were subpar. The scenery and setting were interesting, and Weller was amazing.

4 stars, of a possible 10.",Negative "My friends and I rented this from Blockbuster because we saw Nana Visitor's name on the box. This movie is a travesty I hope she negates from her CV.

The ""plot"" was lose and flaccid, the acting was mostly dry and unbearable in some parts. The movie made no sense whatsoever. The rough plot of an alien parasite species that infects humans has been done many times by films with much better scripts than this, for example, invasion of the body-snatchers and The faculty.

If you ever have the misfortune to come across this movie, I suggest you burn it.

How it classes itself as a horror movie when there was no use of fear, suspense, gore, terror or any of the usual horror film techniques I don't know, however if you still find yourself wanting to watch this film I suggest you have a lot of sugar before hand, so you can find parts of it funny.",Negative "Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.",Positive "I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.

The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point.

The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really.

The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.",Negative "Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.",Positive "This 2003 made for TV movie was shown on a women's channel, naturally. As a man, why do I even attempt to watch this? I don't know, but I should have my head examined. And director and writer Simon Gornick should be ashamed of himself to give men an injustice as he does. He takes away any strength and conviction a man could have by having several boring women do him in. Number one bore is Joyce Hyser as the wife. I couldn't wait for him to drop her. Her revenge was silly and stupid and very confusing through most of the movie. The other femme fatale was Nichole Hiltz, about the coldest person you'd ever want to meet. Her looks didn't warrant our leading man to go that ape over her and her acting was so obvious, only a fool could miss. Definitely a loser. Tembi Locke was pretty good, but slow on the uptake as to the slut seducing her own husband, again played as a guy who is a loser, by David DeLuise. Rounding out our cast of losers is Anthony Denison as a boss who has little to do but scowl at our hero. Stephen Jenkins as our hero, or should I say victim, was not that good. At first I thought he just a bad actor, but later I believed it. He never got the part off the ground and was repetitive throughout. Although, as a man, I became enraged when the two women got away with it. Men, beware of this channel that puts men down and women get away even with murder. LMN is the channel. Beware. Note: Having watched this a second time by mistake, I am convinced on my initial thoughts. Especially on the writer/director, Simon Gornick. I still believe he has disgraced the male species and should be horse whipped. Only saving grace in this film is Tembi Locke who doesn't have a chance to show her talents with the awful acting of Jenkins, Hyser, Hiltz and DeLuise around her. Plus the stupid plot that only makes it worse. Down with Gornick's movie and his vacant stars in it. Please LMN don't show this trite again.",Negative "Although it was released way back in 1967, IN COLD BLOOD still remains the benchmark by which all true-crime films are matched. Veteran writer/director Richard Brooks (ELMER GANTRY) adapted Truman Capote's non-fiction book into a chilling docudrama that retains a disturbing power even today, thirty-five years later.

Robert Blake and Scott Wilson portray Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, two ex-cons who, on a tip from Hicock's old cellmate Floyd Wells, broke into the Holcomb, Kansas home of Herbert Clutter, looking for a wall safe supposedly containing $10,000. But no safe was ever found, and the two men instead wound up killing Mr. Clutter, his wife, and their two children, getting away with only a radio, a pair of binoculars, and a lousy forty dollars. Two months on the run, including an aimless ""vacation"" in northern Mexico, ended in Las Vegas when cops caught them in a stolen car. But it eventually comes out, after merciless grilling by Kansas law enforcement officials, that these two men committed that heinous crime in Holcomb. Tried and convicted on four counts of murder, they stew in jail over a five-year period of appeals and denials until both are hanged to death on April 14, 1965.

Blake and Smith are absolutely chilling as the two dispassionate killers who show no remorse for what they've done but are concerned about getting caught. John Forsythe also does a good turn as Alvin Dewey, the chief detective investigating the crime, as does Gerald S. O'Laughlin as his assistant. In a tactic that is both faithful to Capote's book and a good artistic gambit all around, Brooks does not show the murders at the beginning; instead, he shows the two killers pulling up to the Clutter house as the last light goes out, then cuts to the next morning and the horrifying discovery of the bodies. Only during the ride back to Kansas, when Blake is questioned by Forsythe and narrates the story, do we see the true horror of what happened that night. We don't see that much blood being spilled in these scenes, but we don't need to. The shotgun blasts and the horrified look on the Clutters' faces as they know they are about to die are more than disturbing enough, so there is no need to resort to explicitly bloody slasher-film violence.

Brooks wisely filmed IN COLD BLOOD in stark black-and-white, and the results are excellent thanks to Conrad Hall's expertise. The chilling jazz score by Quincy Jones is the capper. The end result is one of the most unsettling films of any kind ever made, devastating in its own low-key fashion. It is a 134-minute study of a crime that shook an entire state and indeed an entire nation, and should be seen, though viewer discretion is advised; the 'R' rating is there for a reason.",Positive "Did I miss something here? This ""adaptation"" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.

Spoilers;

Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?

It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially ""Country of the blind.)",Negative "When I noticed that ""Hamish Macbeth"" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name ""Hamish Macbeth"" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish.",Negative "The first 2 parts seek to reduce to absurdity the rise of wasteful wars and rule by nationalist barbarians. The 3rd part speculates that progress and exploration toward the moon and beyond is the key to ensuring a meaningful use of human talents and resources. It has speeches that some viewers dismiss as naive or bombastic but that make others tingle with excitement. It depicts a space gun/launcher and a helicopter, along with inventive mass communication devices, elevators, flat screen panels, and wireless intercoms. It's probably incorrect about windowless buildings in the future. But it portrays a child-like vision of boundless scientific/technological investigation.

To me, it seems like a movie about a group of rational minded thinkers guided by a Spinozean-like morality in their quest to immortalize themselves and live ethically through scientific advancement and a unified world government. The pro-progress characters (such as the two Cabals) believe humanity could 'live forever' by preserving our experiments and progress for future generations, always standing on our humanity as if on the shoulders of giants.

Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001: A Space Odyssey) suggested this film to Stanley Kubrick as an example of an excellent SF movie. Kubrick hated it and said he would never watch another movie based on Clarke's suggestions (source: Clarke's special millennial introduction to his 2001 novel). Though the late Clarke kept suggesting it at the top of his list whenever someone asked him about the best SF movies. It has a beautiful Menzies art design, but mediocre special effects (esp. the toy tanks).

I personally loved it and think it excellently captures the zeitgeist of modernity. It is a bit naive about the plausibility of creating a society without crime for an extended period of time. It also seems implausible about the inevitability of progress. It seems to me we could just as easily go right back to the dark ages or at least become so stagnant in science that we kill ourselves off through overpopulation or through our inability to escape the next major natural disaster. But it nicely portrays the importance of taking risks against public and nanny outrage for potential threats of space accidents and deaths. It challenges us to choose the side of progress over petty desires for safety or comfort or happiness:

CABAL: ""Too much {rest} and too soon, and we call it death. But for MAN no rest and no ending. He must go on--conquest beyond conquest. This little planet and its winds and ways, and all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him, and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time--still he will be beginning.""

CABAL: ""If we are no more than animals--we must snatch at our little scraps of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more--than all the other animals do--or have done."" {He points out at the stars.} ""It is that--or this? All the universe--or nothingness..."" (quotes from screenplay).

If this sounds like a rationalization for devoting all of society to progress, then the council members (of the world government) will seem like technocrats. But actually those ""technocrats"" allow their citizens to become artisans or pursue other passions freely, and they would have to be suppressed by government bans, laws against science and experiment, and other mandates and restrictive uses of power that would turn their critics into tyrants.

In fact a huge group of rebels in the plot feel belittled by all the council's developments of science and technology, so they try to put a stop to progress and an end the council's freedom to experiment. The progress oriented council will not suppress the free speech of the rebels though, only preparing its 'peace gas' in times of emergency and merely wanting the freedom and space to pursue its progress.

So it's also a story about the freedom to do science, just as much as it's about the wonders of progress. Many people in our society would actually agree with some of these basic premises, except in cases of social bias (many want to ban cloning, for example) or naturalism (some don't want us to progress freely, and would rather we just become extinct in due time while enslaved to the earth) or fear/reason (some believe we aren't ready for advanced science/technology since we might destroy ourselves). But Cabal (the president of the council) has an answer to the problem of danger: ""Our {scientific} revolution did not abolish death or danger. It simply made death and danger worth while"" (screenplay).",Positive This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring.,Negative "While this movie won't go down in the annals of great cinema, it is a fun way to spend an hour and a half with the family. The film is finally being released in video where it should have debuted in the first place.

The film is about an eclectic group of friends who gather for dinners which they have named, ""The Hungry Bachelors Club"". Jorja Fox plays a woman who serves as a surrogate in order to get a down payment for the restaurant that she wants to open. Bill Nunn plays a Cadillac-loving mystery man who becomes her lover. Fox gives an understated and touching performance and Nunn is reliably talented as always. Micheal des Barres is a hoot as an over the top attorney. The ensemble casts - made up of familiar faces - works nicely together to bring this wacky group of characters to life. This is a good rental and one of the few you can watch with the whole family.",Positive "With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie ""Devil Doll"" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.",Negative "The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.

But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).

In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.

Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.",Negative "I expected this film to be a run-of-the-mill 1930's romance. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy loses girl, boy wins her back in the end. It wasn't like that at all. Clark Gable plays con artist Eddie with all his usual charisma and mischievous eyebrow raising. He is hiding out from the cops when he bursts into Ruby (Jean Harlow)'s apartment, to find her covered in bubbles in the bathtub, no less. Instant chemistry.She plays hard to get for a while, but a girl can only resist that grin for so long. The heat between them is evident, and there are some scenes that are definitely pre-production code! When a blackmail job goes bad and Ruby ends up in a boarding house for ""troubled girls"", she is miserable and, thanks to the ragging her roommate gives her, begins to believe that Eddie will never come for her. Harlow plays the hard-nosed, fast talking Ruby perfectly. She never lets Gable get all the good lines! There is an especially moving scene with her playing ""their song"" on the piano that is acted perfectly. The last fifteen minutes have me crying every time. A truly sweet romance.",Positive "Karloff and Lugosi - Together again! This is one of those films that casual fans will pass over and tend not to appreciate as much. It's not an all-out horror film like the duo's previous two hits, The Black Cat and The Raven. But, it is very worthy of both's talents and is a fun film when re-visited.

The Invisible Ray was directed by Lambert Hillyer, a director who mainly made westerns, but curiously in these final days of the Laemmles' reign at Universal, he found himself helming this and the Laemmles' final horror film, Dracula's Daughter. Both are crisp, clean-cut fantasies that are very light on horror content despite the fantastic elements.

Just as Lugosi went wild in The Raven, much needs to be said of Karloff's hamming in The Invisible Ray. The one aspect of the story that is particularly unsatisfying is that Karloff's character, Rukh, acts so madly before he is poisoned by Radium X, that there really isn't much of a change once he starts glowing. This is very similar to the complaint people have about Jack Nicholson in The Shining - He's basically a loony right from the start. There isn't any real transformation. Same here. Halfway through Karloff simply has an added purpose for revenge in his mind. I still enjoyed his performance, though, just as I did Lugosi's over-the-top antics in The Raven.

Meanwhile, Lugosi completely surprises you and gives a restrained, and thoughtful turn as Rukh's rival in science, Dr. Benet. Lugosi also has some of the best lines in the film, including a memorable warning to the police trying to catch Rukh, of which I am in alignment with horror film writer John Soister on - ""And if he (Rukh) touches anyone?"" the inspector inquires. Lugosi hesitatingly replies, in a way that only Lugosi could deliver, ""They die"". Just as Lugosi could be so off, he could also be more perfect than any actor. This is one of those moments.

Therefore, Karloff and Lugosi's interactions are all very good as we get the mad antics of Karloff pared off against the cool logic of Lugosi. Karloff would go on to play similar mad scientists many times, however, one wishes Lugosi would have gotten to play more straight roles like this one. He only had one more chance (Ninotchka).

The Invisible Ray is a fun film, and a real treat to the true Karloff and Lugosi fans. It is one of those films that improves on each viewing, not because it is a masterpiece, but because of the charisma and talent of its' stars and how this story complements the darker, more horrific pairings they had. The special effects, by the always innovative John Fulton, are terrific and the supporting actors are all adequate. Frances Drake looks as beautiful as she did in Mad Love and plays a strong woman, something seldom seen in classic horror films. The scene in the end when Karloff stalks her and she doesn't scream is one of the most haunting moments of the film. A terrific, fun film!",Positive "Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?",Negative "I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.

This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!!",Positive "Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.

Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.

But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.

One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.

De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.

The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair.",Positive "Just think, it cost a total of $250,000 to make ""Clerks"". How the hell did they spend $45 Million to make this glorified music video? A practically unknown cast, two or three sets, no special effects that I could see... I know, it must have been spent on that expertly crafted, economical, tension filled screenplay. Shoot, that bar set must have cost a bundle. Anyway, I guess Jerry Bruckheimer wouldn't be caught dead producing anything for less. I'm just surprised he didn't blow up anything.

Anyway, it wasn't an awful film I guess. The female leads seemed to have some good chemistry and the soundtrack was OK. IMO It just seems a pity that this rather mediocre project could have been made for $5 Million without any loss to the production, and 6 more $5 million dollar indy films of merit could have been made as well.",Negative "You have to admire Brad Sykes even if you don't particularly want to, a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. But keeps on doing it all the same. Even the half-hearted praise than surrounds his Camp Blood films is given grudgingly and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix, a neat idea, a kooky character, whatever, but without the funds to take it further than base level, he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. Joe Haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as Ebenezer Jackson and its a credit to Sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. Coming to a multiplex near you, in a parallel universe, somewhere.",Negative "This is a great movie, I did the play a while ago. It had an extra zing-- to it. I loved Vanessa Williams as Rosey, and also Jason Alexander has a good voice. It was great. The setting were also very good. Except the fact that it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, makes it pretty long. Overall I give it 8.5 stars. They also added a few parts, but it was still cool.",Positive "I am very sorry that this charming and whimsical film (which I first saw soon after it was first released in the early fifties) has had such a poor reception more recently. In my opinion it has been greatly underrated - but perhaps it appeals more to the European sense of humour than to (for example) the American: maybe we in Europe can understand and appreciate its subtleties and situations more, since we are closer to some of them in real life! Particular mention should be made of the limited but good music - especially the catchy and memorable song ""It's a fine, fine night"", which was issued separately on an HMV 78rpm record (10 inch plum label, I think!) in the fifties. I would urge anyone interested to give it a try if you get the chance: you may have a pleasant surprise.",Positive "this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s.",Positive "I understand this film to be a debut feature and as such, it is very impressive. It has the feel and pacing of a ""true indie"", yet director Todd Yellin clearly possesses the photographic and editorial vision, command and judgment of a mature and seasoned professional. The shots are well framed and thought out and serve to move the story forward. He, and screenwriter Ivan Solomon deliver a story that has much more depth and lyricism than typical ""paint by numbers"" type scripts. It's a story that needs Judd Hirsch caliber character talent to have a shot at working. Judd is fantastic as usual; as are Scott Cohen and the beautiful Susan Floyd. The real surprise though is Elliot Korte who plays Adam Groden. Yellin was able to coax nuance out of the young actor in a role that could have been easily devalued by stereotype or overreach. Anyway, I found the film refreshing and entertaining.",Positive "OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.

I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?

My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.",Negative "This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?",Negative """Stories of the Century"" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as ""Jonesy"" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.

A very good early adult western.",Positive "If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.

Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.

The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise – following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous – but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.

Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell – prominently featured on the DVD cover – appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.

For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.",Negative "For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV ""I can't act!"" When she asks what he needs, I yell ""I need acting lessons!"" to the unbelievably bad dialog (""Give me back my organs!"").

And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.

But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.

Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.",Negative "A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10",Positive "Kim (Patricia Clarkson), George (Jake Weber) and son Miles (Erik Per Sullivan) are headed to the country for winter weekend relief from Manhattan's bustling metropolis. On the way, they hit a buck and end up stuck in the snow. A group of hunters who were tracking the buck come along. Rather than helping, at least one of the hunters, Otis (John Speredakos), is mad because the accident cracked the buck's antlers. George, Kim and Miles are disturbed by Otis, and even worse, we quickly learn that Otis has learned where they're staying. Meanwhile, Miles is given a wendigo (a kind of Indian shape-shifting spirit/monster) token by an Indian whom only he has seen. Is Otis a psycho out to get our heroes? Are there wendigos in the woods?

I can see where Wendigo would have a number of problems appealing to viewers. It is a fairly low budget film, with technical limitations frequently showing through. Much of the film, and maybe all of it, is not really about the titular creature. And perhaps the fatal blow for many people, it has a very ambiguous ending, with a number of questions left unanswered. If you are discouraged by such endings, and you do not like films that have an aim of making you think about and discuss what everything meant, do yourself a favor and avoid Wendigo.

Personally, I like films like that. I usually prefer some ambiguity. The marketing of Wendigo is geared towards those who want a quick, scary creature flick, where they'd expect a grand battle with some supernatural monster who is defeated in the end, and everything is tied up neatly except for an opening for Wendigo 2: The Monster Returns, but that's not what this film is. Wendigo is much more thoughtful and poetic than the surface of such a creature flick would suggest to most people. Heck, writer/director Larry Fessenden even has a character, George, reciting Robert Frost. The Frost poem, and George's comment that Frost can evoke complex imagery and atmosphere out of seemingly simple things, is the key to the film.

One of the best things about the film is its complexity. In a way, there are four different films occurring at the same time, a thread from each character. In George's thread, he isn't exactly the happiest or most pleasant guy in the world, and he has some parenting problems. For him, the film is a realistic, horrific descent of his life going from bad to worse. In Patricia's thread, she's looking for rejuvenation of her life and family. She's a psychologist mostly denying the problems around her, hoping that they'll go away and get better. In Otis' thread, he's even more down on his luck than George, and George's arrival into his life symbolizes the final ""crack"" in his psychological armor. And in Miles' thread, which is probably the most important of the film, life is like a grand poem due to his youthful innocence and interpretation of the world. But this is a horror story, after all, albeit one with a glimmer of hope, and the events in the film give Miles' poetic interpretations a dark turn. Still, when everything is said and done, he seems to be the only one retaining his composure, due to the poetic outlook.

Even though the film is low budget, there are a lot of well-executed higher budget ambitions. Fessenden and director of photography Terry Stacey find some great shots in beautiful locations, and created some interesting slide show like montages (such as the cards, or the Indian wendigo images from the book). There are also interesting more traditional montages, such as Miles' nightmare. Wendigo is better shot and edited than many big budget films.

Other technical aspects are good for the budget. The ""Wendigo"" appearance at the end worked for me and was appropriately ambiguous. The lighting was usually good--there were a few times that dark scenes weren't as clear as they could have been, but it seemed to be more of a problem with the film stock (it could have been digital instead) or transfer. I thought the performances were good and far more realistic (if you value that) than the majority of films. Although I didn't really notice the score, it must have been okay, or I would have noticed it with a negative judgment.

Overall, Wendigo is a very good film that deserves to be watched without preconceptions, as long as you don't mind having to think about the movies you watch.",Positive "I first see this film almost 21 years ago when it was an ITV (before the days of cable and satellite) Matinée. i was off School with the Mumps and i was totally wrapped in the film. i have had it on bought video for about 10 years and i want to obtain a DVD copy of it. David Niven is my all time favourite actor and i think it is a travesty that he was over looked so many times when the Oscars came around. i also think that the queen should have knighted him as he easily did as much for the movie industry if not more than Sean Connery or Anthony Hopkins. the way the film switches from black and white to colour and back again is well done and the film has such stellar actors as Roger Livesy, Marius Goring and an early appearance from Richard Attenborough.",Positive "I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as ""random"" and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something ""real life"" in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.",Negative "I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.",Negative "For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.

Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!

On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare ""Santa Clause vs. Satan"" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes.

Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!

Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself.",Positive "It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back.",Negative "This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.",Negative "yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.",Negative "I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.

Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of ""cloth"", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...

Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in ""9"". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...

And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and ""9"" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...

Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like ""No, don't do it!"" ""I will do it!"" ""But... you cannot do it alone!"" ""We can do it together!"" ""But there are rules!"" ""But we have to save him!"" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop ""Ahh"" and ""Ohhh"" and""Ehh"", and ""Oooh"", and ""Whatchout"", and ""Run!"" and ""OhOhh!"" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.

Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!",Negative "While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.",Negative "Finally, the uncut version of ""Baby Face"" surfaces and from what source? The Library of Congress. The restored four minutes, snippets here and there, make for a much better film. We now know that Baby Face was pimped by her old man from the time she was at least fourteen years of age. Another reason d'tat for her behavior and cold, calculating exterior.

Barbara Stanwyck is indeed amazing in the role of Lily Powers (notice the moniker), a part that called for just the right amount of sexuality coated with power, cunning, and revenge, yet tinged with virginal pretense when called for, a very difficult portrayal to make convincing. Barbara Stanwyck conveys the necessary nuances to show that though she sleeps her way to the top (literally), she still has good in her heart--note the way she treats those few who have been kind to her such as Chico (the marvelous actress Theresa Harris) and the old philosopher. And though she exploits her sexuality to make mush of men who are rich and powerful, those same men are attempting to exploit her for their carnal desires with no intention of permanent ties until they fall in love with her.

Lily Powers fails to understand, at first, that emotions are difficult to ride, that it's easy to lose control. One possible result is death. Hitching a wagon to a star of course materialism can take one to a destination where nothing else exists but the ephemeral, and it's a cold lonely location.

A word should be said about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche whose will to power is stressed in ""Baby Face"" by the elderly philosopher who befriends Lilly when she is still turning tricks for her old man. ""Baby Face"" was released the same year Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Though it's highly unlikely that the semi-literate Hitler understood much about Nietzsche, he considered himself a Nietzschean to the nth degree and touted it along side his other rantings. ""Baby Face"" serves as an indictment of the popular interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power concept, especially in the final scenes.

Although ""You've got the cutest little baby face."" is apropos as a theme for ""Baby Face,"" an even more telling and applicable melody is W. C. Handy's ""St. Louis Blues"" played throughout the film, especially at times when the camera has to drift away from what would otherwise be sexually explicit scenes. ""St. Louis Blues"" is also used wisely toward the end as Lily begins to see beyond materialism to eternal values. Chico is singing a raw, salacious version of ""St. Louis Blues"" when Lily, now disagreeing with the lyrics, orders her to stop.

The restored version of ""Baby Face"" makes the film more modern in its approach and attitude toward sex as power than many a new Hollywood release. By all means watch this gem from the distant past and enjoy.",Positive "CREEPSHOW 2 is the ill-fated sequel to the George Romero's (overrated) original, CREEPSHOW. Any sequel following a Romero film that's not directed by Romero himself has got some large shoes to fill, mostly because of the Romero fans out there who think he's God. I didn't care much for the first film and funny enough, I didn't care much for the sequel. The film series had so much potential but it was short-lived because both films were less than stellar.

The biggest problem with CREEPSHOW 2 was that it only had three stories (excluding the in-between story), and because the first story sucked beyond belief, it only left the chance for almost half of the movie to be *really* good. I saw CS 2 at the movies and the first segment was a real groaner. Anything dramatic with George 'I can't act' Kennedy is automatically doomed and the Indian Statue story was too hokey and simply didn't belong in this sequel. So after a really trite and dull start, there were only two other stories left to reverse the fiasco of the aborted beginning and unfortunately the two other stories weren't great enough for me to forget the first story. THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER are moderately successful, moderately because though the two other segments have their moments, they still sorta fall flat. The two last stories are basically stretched out for too long. It's not that I wanted the stories to happen at a dizzying pace and end fast, but both good ideas found within those stories were sorta nullified by the fact that they were slow and padded and eventually fell flat when the segments needed to be more energized, more erratic and with punchier endings. Also, if the two last stories hadn't been stretched out to pad the movie or had all three segments been more brief with better editing and direction, they could have added a much needed fourth story to the bunch. Having only three padded segments made for a boring feast.

The acting and writing in both THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER segments are from awful to good. I like Lois Chiles in the last segment. It's probably her best moment on screen aside from her role as Bond Girl Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER and in DEATH ON THE NILE. But even her role is difficult to understand at times because of the serviceable direction and the unfocused story. Are we supposed to hate her or sympathize with her? Are we supposed to sympathize with the annoying hitchhiker? If the hitchhiker's body was found by other people on the road, what was he when he attacked Chiles? Was he a ghost or a zombie or what? How did the body eventually left the presence of the other people who found him dead in order to attack Chiles? The whole thing is not very clear, even for a supernatural story. And the ending is rather dull and uneventful.

As for the infamous THE RAFT story, well, the acting is mostly on the awful side and none of the characters are sympathetic or interesting. The characters would have been more interesting had the actors played themselves. None of the actors are convincing in their specific roles. Paul Satterfield looks smarter than the dumb jock he's playing and the actress who plays his girlfriend is not very convincing as the typical bitchy slut. She seems too timid. The same could be said with the two others who play the ""plain"" teens. The idea of the killer oil slick is interesting and creepy but not well executed. There should have been a fifth character to the story, maybe a homeless man or a ranger who lurks around the lake and knows about the oil slick and could have been the watery monster's alter ego of sorts. As creepy as the oil slick is, it doesn't make for a compelling ""character"". And the way the story ends, everything seems pointless. No punch to it whatsoever.

Except for the few titillating aspects which always seems to make boring things worthwhile, seeing CREEPSHOW 2 at a theater was basically a waste of money and time. CS 2 is more rental material than something you pay to see on the big screen.",Negative "I know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. ""Angels in the Outfield"" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.",Negative "WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (but not really - keep reading). Ahhh, there are so many reasons to become utterly addicted to this spoof gem that I won't have room to list them all. The opening credits set the playful scene with kitsch late 1950s cartoon stills; an enchanting Peres 'Prez' Prado mambo theme which appears to be curiously uncredited (but his grunts are unmistakable, and no-one else did them); and with familiar cast names, including Kathy Najimi a full year before she hit with Sister Acts 1 & 2 plus Teri Hatcher from TV's Superman.

Every scene is imbued with shallow injustices flung at various actors, actresses and producers in daytime TV. Peeking behind the careers of these people is all just an excuse for an old-fashioned, delicious farce. Robert Harling penned this riotous spoof that plays like an issue of MAD Magazine, but feels like a gift to us in the audience. Some of the cliched characters are a bit dim, but everyone is drizzling with high jealousy, especially against Celeste Talbert (Sally Field) who is the show's perennial award-winning lead, nicknamed ""America's Sweetheart"". The daytime Emmies-like awards opening does introduce us to Celeste's show, The Sun Also Sets. Against all vain fears to the contrary, Celeste wins again. She is overjoyed, because it's always ""such a genuine thrill"": ""Adam, did you watch? I won! Well, nguh..."" The reason for Adam's absence soon becomes the justification for the entire plot, and we're instantly off on a trip with Celeste's neuroses. She cries, screeches, and wrings her hands though the rest of the movie while her dresser Tawnee (Kathy Najimi, constantly waddling after Celeste, unseen through Celeste's fog of paranoia) indulges a taste for Tammy Faye Baker, for which Tawnee had been in fact specifically hired.

Rosie Schwartz (Whoopi Goldberg) has seen it all before. She is the head writer of the show, and she and Celeste have been excellent support networks to each other for 15 years. So when Celeste freaks, Rosie offers to write her off the show for six months: ""We'll just say that Maggie went to visit with the Dalai Lama."" But Celeste has doubts: ""I thought that the Dalai Lama moved to LA."" ""-Well, then, some other lama, Fernando Lamas, come on!"". Such a skewering line must be rather affronting to still living beefcake actor Lorenzo Lamas, son of aforementioned Fernando Lamas (d. 1982).

Those who can remember the economics teacher (Ben Stein) in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) as he deadeningly calls the roll (""Bueller. Bueller. Bueller""), will take secret pleasure from seeing him again as a nitwit writer. Other well hidden member of the cast include Garry Marshall (in real life Mr Happy Days and brother of Penny), who ""gets paid $1.2 million to make the command decisions"" on The Sun Also Sets - he says he definitely likes ""peppy and cheap""; and Carrie Fisher as Betsy Faye Sharon, who's ""a bitch"".

Geoffrey Anderson (Kevin Kline) is the ""yummy-with-a-spoon"" (and he is, by the way) dinner theater actor now rescued from his Hell by David Seaton Barnes (Robert Downey Jr), and brought back to the same show he was canned from 20 years earlier. Of course this presents some logical challenges for the current scriptwriters because his character, Rod Randall, was supposed to have been decapitated all those years ago. Somehow they work out the logical difficulties, and Geoffrey Anderson steps off the choo-choo.

Celeste can now only get worse, and her trick of going across the Washington bridge no longer helps. First, her hands shake as she tries to put on mascara, but she soon degenerates into a stalker. Unfortunately, she cannot get rid of Geoffrey Anderson so easily. Geoffrey's been promised development of his one-man play about Hamlet, and he means to hold the producer to that promise. ""I'm not going back to Florida no-how!"", argues Geoffrey. ""You try playing Willie Loman in front of a bunch of old farts eating meatloaf !"" And indeed, seeing Geoffrey's dinner theater lifestyle amongst all the hocking and accidents is hilarious. Back in Florida in his Willie Loman fat suit in his room, Geoffrey Anderson used to chafe at being called to stage as ""Mr Loman"". He was forced to splat whatever cockroaches crawled across his TV with a shoe, and to use pliers instead of the broken analog channel changer. Now he find himself as the yummy surgeon dating Laurie Craven, the show's new ingenue; so he's not leaving.

Beautiful Elizabeth Shue (as Laurie) rounds out the amazing ensemble cast who all do the fantastic job of those who know the stereotypes all too well. But, of course, the course to true love never did run smoothly. Montana Moorehead (Cathy Moriarty) is getting impatient waiting for her star to rise, and is getting desperate for some publicity.

Will her plots finally succeed? Will Celeste settle her nerves, or will she kill Tawnee first? Will the producer get Mr Fuzzy? -You'll just have to watch * the second half * of this utterly lovable, farcically malicious riot.

And you'll really have to see to believe how the short-sighted Geoffrey reads his lines without glasses live off the TelePrompter. If you are not in stitches with stomach-heaving laughter and tears pouring down your face, feel free to demand your money back for the video rental. Soapdish (1991) is an unmissable gem that you will need to see again and again, because it's not often that a movie can deliver so amply with so many hilarious lines. This is very well-crafted humor, almost all of it in the writing. A draw with Blazing Saddles (1974) for uproarious apoplexy value, although otherwise dissimilar. Watch it and weep. A happy source for anyone's video addiction. 10 out of 10.",Positive "Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.",Negative "Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them.

What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.

Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent ""Beowulf and Grendel"" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this ""Grendel's"" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes.

This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed.",Negative To me this was Colin Farrells best movie evr! He introduced himself to America through this movie and he was great. He really got you into his charictor and made u feel the passion he was putting into his role. In my opinion it is a great movie and my favorite.,Positive "In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.

But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.

But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: ""You are all dead in this situation!"" barks a sergeant. ""Any Questions?"" ""Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?"" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.

Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.

What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.

While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military.",Positive "This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.

The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity.

Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in ""A Free Soul"", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.

If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss ""Paid"", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.

",Positive "Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.",Negative "I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path.",Positive "Plot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.

To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that ""Sweet Sixteen"" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.

The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.

The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.

All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.",Negative "Sadly, Marry Harron decided to do a fictional account of Bettie Page's life to go along with her own issues with men. As typical in all her work, every major male character is portrayed as weak, bumbling, or twisted. To add to her fiction, she projects ideas and issues that are not true, according to Bettie Page herself. Bettie did not leave the biz because she thought it was morally wrong or had religious issues (though she became a born-again later in life, through the influence of her 3rd husband- a minister). She left it, because she was in her late 30's, her acting career had gone nowhere and she felt she was losing her looks. The hints of molestation and rape are unvalidated and denied in Bettie's own words and are the director's attempts to claim that any woman who did what Bettie did must have been victimized by men. Harron fails to point out that Bettie designed her own clothes in almost all her shoots (not handed to her by ""sick"" fetishists). Harron also fails to make a point that Bunny Yeager, who did many famous photo shoots of Bettie, also did many ""naughty"" shoots with Bettie and was not the morally upright professional photographer portrayed in the film.

The only saving grace is Gretchen Mol looks very much like Bettie. Otherwise, there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it.",Negative "A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the ""Bette of Roses"" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.",Positive "City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.

I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.

The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10",Positive "Alfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.

Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.

It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.",Negative "Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.

Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent ""What is it?"" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.

Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one ""WHAT IS IT?"" than 5000 movies like ""Titanic"" or ""Sleepless in Seattle"" (shudder, gag, groan).

Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.",Positive "The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable.",Positive "If you're a T-Rex/Marc Bolan fan, I recommend you check this out. It shows a whimsical side of Marc Bolan as well as Ringo Starr, apparently having a pretty good time shooting some of the scenes that aren't part of the concert, but fun to watch, leaving you with a sense of getting to know them as just people, and when the concert is shown a talented musician, both playful and professional that rocks and seems to impress the screaming girls. Watching him in concert, you would never know that being a rock star is a job, but just having a great time playing some great songs with some good friends, like Elton John and Ringo Starr appearing in some of the live performances. True, there are a few songs missing that I would like to have seen on there, but like any album it can't have everything. I just bought this in 2006, but if I would have know it came out in 1972, I would have definitely bought it years ago. Sad and strange that a man with so many songs about his love for cars, would never learn to drive and would die in a car crash!",Positive "I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like ""Syriana"", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.

Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's ""Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo"") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to ""rent"" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.

Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end.",Negative "Tintin was one of my favorite heroes as a kid. I used to borrow the books from the school library every chance I got. My favorite one was ""The Red Sea Sharks"" - so much action and humor.

This documentary was a brilliant exposition of the background story of Herge and his development of Tintin. The film-maker's personal experience in interviewing Herge and the story of his relationship with the artist who was the inspiration for the Chan character was very moving.

A great documentary of a very talented and well-loved artist. A great example of someone who has become internationally renown, and has brought joy of millions of children (and the young at heart) all over the world.",Positive "When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!",Positive "Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the ""real"" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.

Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.

Excellent acting and great locations.",Positive "**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.",Negative "There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming ""You're a super crime-fighting valentine!""

Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming ""HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!"" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.

The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!

Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.

The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands.

Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final ""twist"" is more ""Huh?"" than ""Hah!"" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did.",Negative "When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book ""Morvern Callar"" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.

This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.

The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series ""Poldark"". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, ""Jesus' Son"", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.",Negative "The makers of this fine film did a terrific job of getting you involved with the characters,as they suffered through this horrible ordeal.The horrific scene in the woods was done so superbly that you forget that these men were just actors,playing parts.I have never gotten so immersed in a film as I have this one.Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight were never better on screen,as well as fine performances by Ned Beatty,Ronny Cox,Bill McKinney,and though he appeared only briefly,James Dickey,the man who authored the book upon which the film is based,as the sheriff of Aintry.It is somewhat disturbing,and kids,of course,should be shielded from it,but this is great,dramatic cinema.",Positive I have seen the short movie a few years ago. After that I watch all sequels. The first one is really not the best - but it's the most popular one. I've already watch the making of Guinea Pig 1. It's really great what these guys did. Also the sequels are excellent in the special effects. Take your chance to watch it!,Positive "This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie.",Positive "Panahi, whose previous films such as The Circle and Crimson Gold have seemed to range from dour to grim, has produced in his new Offside a funny, obstreperous, joyously chaotic ensemble piece that ends on a note of liberation and heartfelt fun – yet the movie deals with material quite as challenging and relevant as anything else he's done. By focusing on a group of ardent girl soccer fans caught sneaking into the pre-World Cup Bahrain-Iran match in Tehran stadium, Panahi brings up issues of national spirit and independent-mindedness, and the contradictions – and sheer absurdity – of the regime's religious gender apartheid in a world of modern competition with a majority youth population and urban girls who increasingly think for themselves.

As the film opens we breathlessly join one of the girls in a bus, with a father pursing a lost daughter. This one has a disguise and has national colors as warpaint, but we cringe with her in the knowledge of what's going to happen: she's still easily spotted. The thing is, most of the men around don't really care. Still, rules are rules, and once they try to make it through the various checkpoints on the way into the big stadium the would-be soccer girls, or some of them anyway, get rounded up and held in a little compound upstairs in the stadium by some mostly young, green, and rustic soldier-cops who have no idea how to deal with these big city girls' independent ideas and would rather be watching the game – whose roar we constantly hear in the background – themselves. Each girl is different – represents a different set of reasons for wanting to break the rules and different ways of doing it. One wore a soldier's uniform and got into the officers' section. One is tough and masculine and mocking and provocative (she could pass for a pretty boy, and teasingly hints at that: ""Are you a girl or a boy?"" ""Which would you like me to be?""). One doesn't care very much about soccer but went to honor a dead comrade. One (Aida Sadeghi) is an ardent soccer player herself – and so on. These Tehrani girls are stubborn and smart and they walk all over the uptight rural lieutenant in charge of them (Safar Samandar). One of the rural cops (Mohamad Kheirabadi) takes the girl soccer player to the men's restroom (of course there's no ladies'), forcing her to wear a poster of an Italian football star as a mask. A comedy of errors and chaos follows in which the girl escapes.

Later a spiffy looking van comes with an officer who directs the cops to take the girls to the Vice Department – violating sexual segregation rules qualifies as vice. A male gets mixed in with them – a kid who's chronically guilty of smuggling fireworks into the games. The van turns out not to be so spiffy: the radio aerial is broken. But one cop holds it in place so they can listen to the increasingly heart-stopping reportage. Cops and prisoners are all joined in a common excitement now. There's no score, the game goes to penalty kicks, and the winner will go to Germany.

In the background through all this is a real game, a real stadium, and real masses of young men crazy about the outcome of this event. The excitement is tremendous, and the streets are jammed with cars and flags and a milling mob of supporters praying for an Iranian win and united in their excitement.

What makes this film so good, as may be clear by now, is that it's shot during the evening of an actual game with a real finale that turns everything around. This, in contrast to Panahi's previous highly calculated narrative trajectories, is spontaneous vérité film-making that improvises in rhythm with a captured background of actual events and sweeps you into its excitement in ways that are quite thrilling.

The essence of Offside is the disconnect between modern world soccer madness and retro-Islamic social prohibitions repressing women – the latter existing at a time when young Iranian women are becoming part of a global world in which females participate in sport and share in the ardor of national team spirit. How exactly do you reconcile the country's ambition to become a modern global power with social attitudes that are medieval? A lot of Offisde is astonishingly real, including the way everybody tries to talk their way out of everything. The director's decision to inject young actors into an actual sports mega-event leads to a stunningly effective blend of documentary, polemic, and fiction that is too energetic to seem to have a bone to pick, and that ends in a way that's brilliant and moving.

I've had reservations about Panahi's films before, but this one kicks ass. Panahi does something remarkable here. He critiques his society, presents an unusual drama, and touches our hearts with a sense of a nation's aspirations.",Positive "One of the best musicals ever made, this is an example of where the producers and director were not afraid to pick actors for their talent, rather than for what people might expect. The lighting and set are unique, giving it a very interesting effect (this has a special name that I cannot think of). The dialog is also unique in that no contractions are used. The movie is well paced, beautifully acted and interesting from start to finish. A real joy is the MUSIC. Such an array of first-rate songs, from beginning to end, that are perfectly performed and orchestrated. Also, the music is very original and very memorable, and I think superior to many musicals from the thirties through the sixties. It certainly has more original and beautiful songs than most musicals, that might have only two or three. Not bad for a director with no experience in this type of movie. Another quality is that it is fresh each time one sees it.",Positive "seriously i loved this film..i had started to read the book and i loved it...the way everything was set up and everything had a purpose...i think this film did so well was because Louis Sachar wrote the screenplay..and of course Andrew Davis directed it...Shia Lebouf gives a great performance for his first film...the storyline is very cool and interesting...there's humor, heart and intensity...it is very similar to the book..i find this film to be not the least bit boring...i absolutely loved it...and i encourage anyone to read the book..all in all this film is very well put together and carefully crafted...two thumbs up for me in every single way",Positive "Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.",Positive "At the Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 1957, Dorothy Malone won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her torrid, over-the-top portrayal of a spoiled heiress of a Texas oil tycoon in WRITTEN ON THE WIND. The 1956 potboiler, adapted from Robert Wilder's novel , was a veritable three-ring-circus showcasing alcoholism, greed, impotence and nymphomania.

Malone's performance as Marylee Hadley , a lonely rich girl who picks up men to assuage the pain of rejection from a former childhood sweetheart, was representative of the movie as a whole. Mesmerizing to watch even as it resorts to the ""lowest -common- denominator"" melodrama, WRITTEN ON THE WIND is ultimately the work of one man, the incredibly gifted director Douglas Sirk, an émigré from pre -World War 2 Weimar Germany who left his European theater heritage behind to pursue a career in Hollywood.

An extremely erudite man, Sirk made a name for himself in the 1950's as Universal Studios' reliable director of lavish soap operas, most notably with Ross Hunter's productions of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION , ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS and IMITATION OF LIFE . Independent producer Albert Zugsmith offered Sirk the opportunity to work outside the limiting constraints of Universal's demure entertainments and create a more adult , ""sensational"" product , hence the sultry WIND and its follow-up, 1957's TARNISHED ANGELS, both released under the Universal International banner. It's anyone's guess why Sirk didn't pursue loftier themes, but apparently directing these exaggerated dramas appealed more to his artistic sensibilities. WRITTEN ON THE WIND could be considered Sirk's epic soap opera ; indeed, it is so rife with human vulnerability and neurosis as depicted among the very rich that it is as compelling to watch as any real life domestic squabble among the rich and famous, perhaps more so. Robert Stack (not an actor typically known for over -emoting) nearly matches Malone in intensity with his offering of the weak- willed brother Kyle Hadley, a mere shadow of his patriarchal father. When he finds out that he is unable to impregnate his new bride ( a beautifully leonine Lauren Bacall ) , Hadley goes off the deep end, escalating an already serious drinking problem with a ""secret "" gun fetish that threatens to make him a human time bomb. Both brother and sister, as venal and unlikeable as they are, are presented as victims of their past, giving them a human quality that makes them seem less monstrous ( and far more interesting than the 'good"" side of the family, mainly Bacall and the impossibly handsome Rock Hudson , young Hadley's old boyhood friend and business associate, a surrogate son to the old man and Malone' s unattainable object of desire. ) Despite all the domestic co-dependency on display , it's not so much the story that is memorable here as the way it is filmed. With a real panache for pictorial composition and editing, director Sirk draws his audience into this picture with the most heightened Technicolor cinematography imaginable : every single shot in this film is an eye-filling canvas of saturated colors, from the sight of a tank-like pink Cadillac pulling up to an enormous mansion's front doors to the garish decor of a luxury Miami hotel , a spectrum of hues almost blinding in their diversity. Action and dramatic scenes feature Sirk's adept use of tilted camera angles , shadowy lighting and cross-cut editing , shown to greatest effect in the scene where a rebellious , drunken Malone dances uninhibitedly in her upstairs bedroom to the loud blaring of a record player while her stricken father precariously ascends the huge staircase ; the scene is so riveting that you swear you are experiencing a great oedipal drama unfold. What you're really watching is trash of an enormously entertaining kind, gussied up in lurid Technicolor and polished to perfection by a visual genius.",Positive "In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.",Negative "I'm tired of people judging films on their ""historical accuracy"". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time.",Positive "Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.",Negative "OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a ""classic"" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words ""Watership Down""- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't ""do it"" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't ""Torque"" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.",Negative "This is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just HAVE to get because it just looks so horribly bad. And indeed, we couldn't take most of it. There was a lot of fast-forwarding going on.

But then we came across a scene where Robert Englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). CRIPES. I've never watched a single scene from a film so many times (I'm estimating forty or so). And I've never laughed so hard in my life. You see, Englund has this thing for showing off his loins. I last saw the film a couple months ago, but I can't stop laughing as I type. Anyway, the scene is a montage of shots-- Englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl, Englund riding a horse naked, and some mysterious woman fellating a snake's head. This is absolute genius. You've got to see it for yourself.",Negative "Gandhi my father is like viewing a book, chapter by chapter you read it(with your eyes) and you learn more about Harilal Gandhi and for that matter Kasturba Gandhi. So little is known about both of them and this movie describes them uniquely. The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother. And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.

Such movies are like leap years. They come after only so much time.

Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.

Watch it, if you like quality cinema.",Positive "On the basis of the preview I'd seen, I went to ""Shower"" expecting a sweet little comedy; what I found was a profoundly touching drama of family life told in some of the most lush photographic images I've ever been privileged to see. In addition, later reflection made me appreciate the abrupt cuts to scenes from the past (in the arid countryside of Northern China, and in the high plain of Tibet): isn't this how memory often works? One moment I'm here, the next I'm in a landscape from the past, just like that....

I would not only strongly recommend this film, I would place it among the two or three finest films I've seen in my 60 years.

By the way, a couple of years ago another Asian ""comedy"" was released in the United States as ""Shall We Dance?"" (Japanese). Just as with ""Shower,"" the preview gave not the slightest indication of the depth of that film, which turned out to be a subtle psychological study (albeit chock full of funny moments). Is there a fear, on the part of distributors, of making films appear too ""important"" or ""deep"" to appeal to U. S. viewers?",Positive "Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars.",Negative "David Chase's ""The Sopranos"" is perhaps the most over-praised television show in recent memory. Not only is the series devoid of intellect and passion, it's devoid of a soul. As anyone reading likely knows already, James Gandolfini *IS* Tony Soprano, a big, fat a**hole of a mob boss with a spoiled b*tch of a wife, and two bratty, sh*t-brained kids living in - you guessed it - the armpit of America (that's New Jersey, by the way). Not only is Tony a womanizing adulterer, he's also an unrepentant murdering scumbag, with a crew of ""Saturday Night Live"" skit-worthy caricatures for subordinates. It's not the fact that Tony is a piece of sh*t mobster that offends me (and apparently only me). Allowing characters to be who and what they are, without judgment, is something American TV hardly allows. But Chase - and his entourage of money-gorged, Emmy-gored writers - have not simply allowed us to observe Tony and his crew as they behave, nor have they even attempted to provide any insight into the action / reaction reality of (even obviously fictionalized) organized crime (a la ""The Godfather""). Instead, Chase glorifies and endorses his characters' greedy, violent, and corrupt lifestyle in the same way that Tony, his wife, and even his hair-brained psychologist do week after week (or should I say month after month. Or is it year after year? It seems like the show's paltry 13-episode seasons come out with the same regularity as a lunar eclipse). Much has been made of the series' refusal to adhere to ""network"" structure, with plot lines that go nowhere, and characters that pop-up and disappear like backyard vermin. But if the show is so brilliant in its lack of structure, why does it always feel like I'm watching a soap-opera? Tired mob clichés, bored housewives, self-serving, irredeemable characters AND plots that go nowhere. More than ever, I can see why so many Americans of Italian heritage are p*ssed at this show. It's enough to make you want to curl up with a good book (Danté's ""Inferno"" springs to mind).

People on IMDb love to claim that there's nothing good on television, and therefore ""The Sopranos"" is a breath of fresh air. Are these same people too busy paying their cable bills to watch ""The Shield""? (It's included in Basic, ya know). How about the (still good) ""The West Wing""? Or the brilliantly acted (if erratically written) ""Boston Legal""? What about possibly the best comedy of the last few decades, ""Arrested Development""? And lest we forget that we live in an age of DVDs - nobody *has* to watch *anything* new. I'd much rather shell out $40 for an over-priced boxed set of, well, pretty much *anything*, than give HBO $10 a month (or $80 a DVD set!) to continue to prove how much of a hack-factory it can be.

You want good television? Watch ""Homicide: Life on the Street."" Or ""Murder One"". Or ""Picket Fences"". Or even Chase's prior show, ""Northern Exposure."" If you're already among ""The Sopranos""'s legion of brain-washed fans and critics, it's too late for you. But if not, leave Tony and his worthless kin where they all belong - rotting with the fishes. (""Sleeping"" would be way too kind)",Negative "This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt.

Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.

The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.

The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as ""Fearless"".

So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.",Negative "Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.

When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is ""wait a minute, you don't?"" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. ""The love story is too cheesy"" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.

And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.

Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.

I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.

I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.

I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events.",Positive "I've waited to see this movie for a long time and at last I could manage to see it in Istanbul Film Festival. Maybe because I expected too much from this film and that's why i was slightly disappointed. I was not the best movie from Korea but still it is really worth watching.

The subject was nice and the film makes you keep watching without getting bored though it is long. But there are gaps in the movie and you jump from one point to another. However, the acting of Jeon Do-Yeon is incredibly beautiful. It was was one of the best performances in the early cinema history and I think this movie wouldn't be that nice if she was not in the leading role.",Positive "I watched the first series avidly, but wondered whether I'd go back again after a lengthy break from it. However, I tuned into episode one of Series 2 and was hooked all over again. This really is excellent telly; ground-breaking stuff like Mission:Impossible back in the 1960s. The characters are well rounded, and expand as the series goes on, they change as they adapt - some more readily than others - to their new surroundings, but they cleverly remain strictly in character, and yet it is more than possible to have sympathy for someone whom you wouldn't have thought you could ever feel sorry for, when something really crushing happens to them. I hope there will be many years of 'Lost' to look forward to - and I don't actually mind all that much if I never get answers to all the mysteries!",Positive "This is such a great movie ""Call Me Anna"" because it shows how a person has suffered for so long without knowing what was wrong with her. For Patty Duke to come out in the publics eye and tell her story is an inspiration to those who suffer from this disease. I have a lot of respect for her as a person. The only thing I don't like is I can't get it on tape, I've tried looking for it but with no success. Any one know how to get it?",Positive "I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.

This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.

Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself!

The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!",Negative "Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED ""A Christmas Story."" The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed ""A Christmas Story."" It's that bad. 1/10.",Negative """Whipped"" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe ""The Grinch."" It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called ""High Fidelity."" Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, ""Whipped"" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a ""comedy"" can get.",Negative "Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after ""Crimson Tide"" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics (""De-Lovely"" and ""Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,"" for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of ""mystique"" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, ""Domino"" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior ""Rules of Attraction,"" Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, ""entertainment"" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on ""Jerry Springer""), and I found myself wishing they would all get the ""tails"" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. ""Domino"" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.",Negative "I first saw this film when I was about 8 years old on TV in the UK (where it was called ""Laupta: The Flying Island""). I absolutely loved it, and was heartbroken when it was repeated a while later and I missed it. I was enchanted by the story and characters, but most of all by the haunting and beautiful music. It would have been the original English dubbed version which I saw - sometimes erroneously referred to as the ""Streamline Dub"" (the dub was actually by Ghibli themselves and only distributed by Streamline) which is sadly unavailable except as part of a ridiculously expensive laser disc box-set.

Unfortunately I feel that the release has been partly spoiled by Disney. The voice acting is OK but the dialogue doesn't have the same raw energy that the ""streamline"" dub or the original Japanese had, and I think James Van Der Beek sounds too old to play the lead. They have made some pointless alterations, such as changing the main character's name from ""Pazu"" to ""Patzu"", and added some dialogue. But worst of all I feel that they have ruined many scenes with intrusive music - the opening scene of the airships for example was originally silent but has been spoiled thanks to Disney's moronic requirement that there be music playing whenever anyone is not speaking, which I find annoying in many Disney films.

This film still blows away most recent animated films, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. The plot is simple yet captivating and the film shows a flair which is sadly missing from most modern mass-market, homogenized animation.",Positive "I consider myself a great admirer of David Lynch's works, for he provides the viewers with absolutely unique motion pictures with typical ""Lynch-elements."" Having seen most of his works, I naively thought I could predict Lynch's next step. I was dead wrong. Dumbland is something I could have never imagined under the name of David Lynch. Still, after my recovery from the first shock, I started to contemplate about this extremely primitive main character, and I drew the conclusion that all the absurdities, cruelty, brutality and disgust presented here are mirroring bits from reality, being emphasized by distorting it. There are things in our lives we hardly ever emphasize, for they are either disgusting or horrible, however, they are surrounding us, so I take the courage to say, Dumbland focuses on these bits and pieces. This is not a movie to enjoy, though you'll sometimes laugh out of a strange, perverted sense of humor, this is an animated reflection of all things we rather reject to observe, with its simplicity, morbidity and absurdity. Take it as it is, you don't have to like it. It just exists. And finally, if you're attentive enough, you'll find elements typical to Lynch as well. I recommend it for tolerant people!!!",Positive "The first time I saw this ""film"" I loved it. When I was 11, I was more interested in the music and dancing. As I've grown older, I've become more interested in the acting as well. While the first half is just a retrospective of Michael's career (from the Jackson 5 up to ""Bad""), it was still entertaining to watch. The ""Badder"" sequence could've been left out, though the kids were pretty good. ""Speed Demon"" and ""Leave Me Alone"" were funny, especially when the police officer tells Michael, ""I need your autograph right here"", after stopping him for dancing in a no-dancing zone. But it's ""Smooth Criminal"" that's the icing on the cake. Joe Pesci did an excellent job as the toughie (and that hair was wild). The dancing is perfect, and so are the special effects. The only thing I could have done without was the spiders. Any fan of Michael's should see this, if you haven't already. I give it a 10+!",Positive "Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.

I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the ""full faith and credibility"" clause. It's ""full faith and credit,"" by the way!

This also reminds me of ""The Conrad Boys,"" where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.",Negative "For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.",Negative "Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all.",Negative "Most of what has been said about the negative aspects of the film hold true.

BUT .... If I have to sit through a movie were the:

Director

Director of Photography

Editor

Can't EVEN miss the darn Microphone Boom popping in and out of the movie for almost every Chapter of the movie, how can I enjoy and concentrate on the story as well as believe in the darn thing when I'm reminded of the technicalities of making a movie!!!!!!!

WAIT FOR THE DVD OR DON'T BOTHER",Negative Farrah Fawcett gives the best performance by an actress on film in this gritty real life attempted rape thriller where she turns the tables & gives James Russo a taste of his own medicine. A must see for any movie fan.,Positive "Dudley Moore is fantastic in this largley unknown classic. This film is very witty film that relies hugely on the actors talent. Without Dudley Moore, John Gielgud, Liza Minnelli, and a few others, this film could have been a disaster. It is not always well shot and at times has some very corny music that tries to force a mood (the ""psycho""-like music at the wedding fight), but the acting overcomes it. The character Arthur is hilarious, with his drunken comments. But he develops well into a more mature, well rounded character as he learns to live by his own free will. The end is fairly corny, though. I wont give it away, but it could be improved. Worth seeing many times.",Positive "Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.",Positive "I truly enjoyed the movie, however, I did not realize that Little Richard had so many things going on in his life. First of all I was not aware of Lucille. There is very little (hardly any) mention of females being intimately involved with Little Richard. Even in his life today there is no mention of any involvement of females in a romantic way. I wonder why this part of his life was not mentioned. Overall the movie was great. I also did not like Leon playing the part of Little Richard, he is a good actor but I feel that the part of should have went to a different actor. Visually he did not remind me of Little Richard. I also was totally unaware of the promiscuity that Little Richard was a part of. From the movie he was pictured as a sexual addict. In todays time he would be referred to counseling for his sexual addition. He was a voyeur. I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen the movie however there were several things about the movie that I feel should not have been a part of the final cut.",Positive "Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!",Negative "Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.

Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.

Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.

And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.

Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money.",Negative "I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.

SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would ""hook up"" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.

Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.

This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it!",Negative """I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!"" The small town sheriff laments.

""This happens a lot in Chicago?"" His deputy asks.

Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of ""Big Bean, IL"". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.

The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie.",Positive "Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.

Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.

Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring.",Negative "Gung Ho is one of those movies that you will want to see over and over again. Michael Keaton is put in charge of wooing a Japanese car company to come to his town thus creating jobs for the residents of Hadleyville. What happens after that is one hilarious moment after another. The two cultures clash and it is up to Keaton to hold things together. Look for great performances from Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, George Wendt, Mimi Rogers, John Turturro, Soh Yamamura and Sab Shimomo. All are perfectly cast. Don't be fooled by the low number rating. This is a 7.5 in my book. It is interesting to note that the town name of Hadleyville was also used in High Noon. Yes, there is a real Hadleyville but in Oregon.",Positive "SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an ""episode"" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off ""danger zone"" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the ""real"" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the ""danger zone"" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the ""cuts"" from one take to another, I would imagine).",Negative "As with that film we follow the implausible if always engaging adventures of the 2 lead characters. But whilst C + J eschew sex for a girly trip back into childhood, this pair revel in their carnality even to the point of exploring homoeroticism. Most of the sex they acquire from grudging or unwilling partners and yet, despite their deeply un-PC behaviour, everyone emerges smiling. Like C + G, through it all they remain innocents at heart, rebels against the quotidien, the bourgeois, the restrictive. As someone else has commented, I wouldn't want to know these 2 and it's a minor miracle that their trip brings scenes of mostly comedy and very little tragedy (and what there is of that cannot be laid at their door) and thus for that reason, it left me beguiled but with a sweet taste in the mouth. Dare I say that only the French can get away with films like this. And that is part of their genius.",Positive "Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match.",Positive "If you read my review of SyFy's ""Dinoshark"", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a ""so bad, it's good"" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey ""Dinoshark"", I sat down to watch ""Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy"", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people!

Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com",Negative "I don't remember when I first heard about this movie, but I rented it about six years ago, and it still remains one of my favorite comedies. I will admit, you probably will despise this movie if you know nothing about rap music. But if you are a rap fan, even a casual one, you will love the inside jokes and references. One of the best lines in the movie is about the difference between a b**** and a h**; I still use this line today and get lots of laughs with it. One of the best performances comes from Larry Scott, who played nerd Lamar in `Revenge of the Nerds'. It is unfortunate that this movie will likely never get a DVD release.",Positive "While the original 1932 version, with Preston Foster, was good, there's no remake more worthy than this 1959 one, or more impossible to find anywhere, just as I strongly suspect Mickey Rooney to have had something to do with that. Never could a mere performance have ever been so masterfully brilliant, or a script more thought-provoking, as well as an improvement upon the original. Many years after the last of my several viewings of this film, in 1970, I read an article in which Mickey Rooney was recounting a visit he'd made to death row, and which had apparently very drastically eliminated whatever sense of personal identification he'd felt with people in similar circumstances. The article was about as short as the main character here, and didn't cover much, other than the extent to which his extreme disillusionment with the quality of the inmates themselves had been emphasized, even in language I would not care to explicitly quote here. . . . . One of my main problems with capital punishment is that, of course, it is not evenly, impartially applied, just as many innocent people are far-too-carelessly, thus unnecessarily sent to meet this particular fate. Another problem I have with it is that it is not applied swiftly enough, or, for that matter, even publicly enough! The bible makes a special point, in such cases, about one of the more important purposes of such, as a deterrent, being ineffectually obscured, minus, not only a public viewing, but also the direct participation of all! As for those who claim to prove, statistically, that such is not an effective deterrent? In addition to having a problem about the reliability of their data, I have little if any objectively disprovable doubt many are behind bars now due to the extent that such a deterrent is lacking. However, I do have a problem about the fact that Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, had been punished at all, for his particular ""crime,"" or that the only hope of leniency for one such as he would have to be based on a ""temporary insanity"" defense, as though that would serve as the only acceptable excuse in his kind of case. . . . In addition to various other questions concerning the motives of Mickey Rooney for that particular visit he'd recounted, and about the answers to which I can only try to speculate, I suspect the main one had been of a decidedly religious nature. I don't know exactly when he'd become the professing Christian he now makes it a special point, whenever possible, to emphasize that he is; but, as anybody should be well-aware, this particular category of people tends to be the most vehemently out for blood, when it comes to extracting an eye for an eye. However, I have no particular bone of contention concerning that, per se, just as there's no doubt, scripturally speaking, that not all, and perhaps not even most, shall be spared the same ultimate fate, at the hands of the Lord Himself, as a result of His sacrifice on the cross. However, there is a problem, for me, about the spirit or attitude with which most professing Christians emphasize their enthusiasm for capital punishment; for, contrary to the Lord Himself, who would love to see everybody saved (Ezekiel 18:32) (II Peter 3:9), they seem to go vindictively out of their way to find reasons to condemn! . . . What most people, on either side of this superlatively ever-burning issue, cannot appear to sufficiently appreciate, is that the Lord is as dynamically and elusively soft in nature as He is hard. The two sides of His nature appear to be so inherently incompatible as to render Him mentally deranged, at least by any strictly human reckoning. Yet, regardless of how harrowingly ungraspable this miraculously dynamic blending of the water and oil in His nature surely is, there can be no doubt that anything short of it, or anything fanatically and characteristically on either one side or the other of this equation, falls inadequately and unacceptably short of the entire judicial truth. Indeed, I've seen the most blood-curdling thirst for the same come out, self-contradictorily enough, on far-too-many occasions, whenever the categorically anti-death penalty advocates are confronted, even in the most rationally well-balanced ways, with the fact that, although the Lord died for everybody, not all are thereby going to be saved. After-all, in order to receive absolution, one must, to repeat the same term, reach out and receive it, that is, repent (Luke 13:3-5). Could anything make more sense? . . . But, then, what about the Lord's command to forgive, even in the case of one's enemies, of those who despise and persecute you without a just cause or provocation? One of the far-too-prevailing difficulties with this kind of sentimentality, as popularly misinterpreted, is the way it obscuringly over-simplifies the real meaning of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness does not, in itself, mean the same thing as unconditionally excusing the one being forgiven. When one takes a clearly sober, rationally well-balanced view here, from the perspective of God's own attitude, all it actually amounts to is a fervent wish that the one forgiven will ultimately succeed at finding his way, seeing the light, and being granted mercy. This attitude is, of course, the very opposite of, say, that of Jonah, who actually resented it when God told him that his preaching to the people of Nineveh would result in their repentance. Jonah didn't want them to repent, but vindictively desired that they be destroyed. How self-righteously, cold-bloodedly like unto most professing Christians he was, save that even his reasons were undoubtedly better than most! I envy Jonah almost as much as he would me! However, minus the repentance of the one being forgiven, any forgiveness he may receive from a genuine Christian is not going to do him any good. In such a case, the only one to benefit is the real Christian himself!",Positive "I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****",Negative "I bought this movie exciting a gloriously gratuitous, over the top, entertaining bloodbath. I got none of them. This film fails on practically every level, not in the least frightening, or funny, it is simply terrible film-making, and never provides the audience with anything worth seeing. What is so bad about it is that far from being as raw, violent and brutal as it had promised to be, there is very little violence at all. Virtually no blood shed, and no excitement whatsoever. Acting, direction and dialogue is absolutely unbearable. Honestly, it is truly laughable. I could hardly sit through this total garbage once; I certainly will never want to watch it again. Don't waste your time with a waste of celluloid like this; it is truly possibly the worst film ever made. If I could give it minus stars, I would.",Negative "Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.

Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.

Nothing to see here, keep moving...

",Negative "Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.",Negative "Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in ""Avalon"" and ""Diner"". He had some fine movies as well (""Rainman""), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. ""Envy"" is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick (""Dumb and Dumber""), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success.",Negative "Typically terrible trash from director Fred Olen Ray about a female cyborg hunter(Teagan)commissioned by Warden Jan-Michael Vincent to find and execute escaped alien convict Ross Hagen who has charted course for earth. Soon Forest Ranger John Phillip Law will have to protect a group of obnoxiously hammy college kids headed by the grating Richard Wiley who ran over Hagen with his RV on a camping trip gone awry. Soon the cyborg will be blasting away with her arm laser burning one innocent alcoholic Doctor(Robert Quarry of Count Yorga-Vampire fame)proving that no one will stand in it's way of retrieving the hide of the convict, whose collar is a tracking device that weakens his body. Law finds an ally in Leo Gordon, an old Vietnam war vet with way too weapons stashed in his cabin.

Perhaps intentionally made awful, this features what fans of ""rancid cinema"" yearn for..dreadful special effects, acting, and premise. At least, the film has PJ Soles for some eye candy..even in '89, she was quite smokin'. That laser gun sure is funny..it can incinerate some houses yet when the Cyborg shoots at Law it barely leaves a mark on the location fired.",Negative "And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the ""Dawn of the Dead"" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.)

Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie!",Positive "This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish.",Negative "I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.

It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.

Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.

Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number.

When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.

The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.

Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.

P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.

The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.

Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more?",Positive It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.

Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.

Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.

The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.

The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning.,Positive "My complaints here concern the movie's pacing and the material at hand. While using archival film and letters lends the film a fresh and interesting perspective, too often the material selected to highlight simply isn't very interesting (such as when Goebbels complains about this or that ailment, &tc., or the ad nauseam footage of his small German hometown). Also, the movie crawls along in covering c. 1920-1939 and then steams through the war years. In sum, the film is little better than a History Channel documentary, with the exception that the filmmaker has a slightly greater sensibility than your average History Channel documentary editor and thus can more artfully arrange the details of Goebbels' life. Still, I found it wanting.",Negative "Sequel to ""The Kingdom"" is bloodier and even more twisted. I only saw half (I was exhausted and couldn't sit through all 5 1/2 hours) but I loved what I saw. Ghosts, blood, murder, poisoning, mutated babies, voodoo...this has it all! If you have a strong stomach and like weird movies this is for you.

Also, you don't have to see Part 1 to understand this...you'll figure it out!

Does anyone know if Kingdom 1 and 2 are available on DVD? Sitting through these marathon movies in a theatre is tiring.

Sadly, there probably won't be a ""Kingdom 3""--Ernst-Hugo Jaregard (Sig) died a year after this was filmed. But you never know!",Positive "This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.

On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as ""Old Charlie"", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.

Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.",Negative "Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song ""Everybody's Talkin'"" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.",Positive "A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like ""Rancid Aluminium"") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of ""internet terrorist group"" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.

Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...

",Negative "When ""Good Times"" premiered in 1974, it was one the first black family sitcoms. It centered on the poor Chicago-based Evans family and their struggles to make ends. Most of the early episodes focused on the parents, James and Florida Evans, and their struggle to provide for the family. John Amos and Esther Rolle were the best part of the show. They were terrific actors and had great chemistry as James and Florida Evans. They had three kids: J.J., Thelma, and Michael. J.J. was the skirt-chasing but well-meaning teenage son who made up for his lack of subtletly with artistic talent. Thelma was an attractive, bright girl who was constantly trading insults with J.J. Michael was a near child prodigy who was well-educated on social issues and was destined to become a lawyer.

In 1976, the producers made a huge mistake by firing John Amos, literally killing off his character. This really changed the focus, and not for the good I might add. The shows began to focus more on J.J. and his buffoon-like behavior which angered black viewers as well as series star Esther Rolle, who left after the next season. Instead of a show that focused on key African-American issues that existed in society at the time, viewers got shows that were overloaded with skirt chasing and fat jokes.

Once Esther Rolle left, the quality of the show suffered even more. Although it was still watchable, it was no longer the great ground-breaking show that it once was.

Although Esther Rolle came back for the 1978 season, it became obvious that the show was on its last legs. All loose ends were tied up during that season and the show quietly faded off the air.

First three season: A. Last three seasons: C+.",Positive "And it falls squarely into the category of ""awesomely bad"" - ie a movie drunk students would rent to get a kick out of. I was at the sci fi movie festival and all I remember is a wave after wave of hysterical laughter as this movie premiered. Other critiques will better describe this movie's fecal nature, and I felt oh-so-bad at the poor guy from the production company who had turned up, obviously to gauge the audience's reaction. What he got was the sci fi equivalent of a drunken student audience, and after a ""serious"" anime movie, I think it was ""sky blue"", the audience was in a sombre mood, and then this movie opened and within seconds everyone in the room was rolling in the isles. I will bullet point the worst parts;

Script: The funniest, and worst part of this movie, it clunks along a linear and predictable road with the occasional ill-thought-out aside. Rubbish, but eminently laughable.

Animation: Poorly done, and put together, if you can put up with drab backgrounds and gradually skimpier costumes for the heroine (I know I can!), then watch out for the montage where she ""trasforms"" from a Swedish peasant girl into LADY DEATH!!!

Characters: So one-dimensional its painful, there is a brief backstory (with side-splitting lines of dialogue) and little light is shone on the actual motivation behind some of the main characters.

So, in a nutshell, if you've got a captive audience and a few beverages lying around (try and make sure they're alcoholic to ease the pain), then slip this movie into the DVD and get in a ""mystery science theatre 3000"" mindset. There is no other motivation to watch this movie other than to laugh at it, and its not meant to be a comedy. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. It could possible be even more boring to watch solo than ""New World"" with Colin Farrell as you won't be able to have a laugh at the ridiculousness with a friend or two.",Negative "Even longtime Shirley fans may be surprised by ""Now and Forever."" The movie was filmed with Paramount studios – not with Shirley's parent company Twentieth Century Fox – in 1934, before Fox producer Darryl Zanuck had perfected the successful Shirley formula (cute songs, cold hearts for her to melt, young couples for her to play cupid to, happy endings). Thus ""Now and Forever"" falls into the category of a Shirley vehicle without the standard Shirley story. It is an awkward position for any movie, but this impressive, talented cast makes it work.

Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard star as fun-loving, irresponsible con artists Jerry and Toni Day. The only thing that this devoted yet dysfunctional duo seems to hate more than being together is being apart. When they are suddenly landed with custody of Jerry's young daughter Penny (Shirley Temple), it is Toni – and not Penny, as many believe – who persuades Jerry to give up his criminal career. But Jerry flounders at his desk job, and desperate to prove that he can provide for his new family, he soon returns to thieving and dishonesty. In a standard Shirley device, Penny tries to melt the heart of crusty curmudgeon Felix Evans, the victim of one of Jerry's cons, but her attempt fails, for Evans is revealed to be a con artist himself, and he blackmails Jerry into helping him steal jewels. The drama, gunfight, death, and sorrow that follow all make this film a very unusual one for Little Miss Sunshine. There is no happy ending, no dancing, and only one song sequence (the cute number ""The World Owes Me a Living"").

But this does not mean that Shirley fans should avoid ""Now and Forever."" Rather, it's divergence from the usual Shirley story make it more interesting and memorable than many of her other films. But beware: You should avoid colorized version of this film, and see it in black-and-white if you can. The color is bright, garish, and unrealistic, and in many scenes, Shirley's famous curls are actually red instead of blonde. Yikes!",Positive "Anyone with a young boy in the house who won't watch black & white movies should put this on their television set. When the child walks by, wondering what all the on screen shouting and shooting's about, tell him this is a picture for adults and that he isn't big enough to watch it yet. That'll hold him there for a few minutes; director George Stevens and his team will keep him to the end.

I think my father did that to me, anyway, and I'm the better man for it. This classic adventure yarn, set in India during the British occupation, features a trio of Army sergeants who find their tight union facing dissolution as one prepares to marry his sweetheart. Help arrives in the form of a vicious Thuggie revolt that the soldiers find themselves united against.

""Gunga Din"" was one of the great movies to come out of Hollywood's finest year, 1939. Even more than most great movies from that Golden year, it is entertaining in a very immediate and accessible way. The theme music is instant hummable nirvana. While shot in California, the camera work (the only thing in ""Gunga Din"" that got so much as an Oscar nomination) has a windblown grandeur that feels very much like the Raj of a hundred years before. The battle scenes are shot in a very realistic manner, not too violent but very messy as people fall and shoot and run in all corners of each frame in a way that feels real, not staged like some Cecil B. DeMille Biblical slaughter fest.

The script doesn't just set up action scenes, it also develops the relationship of the three sergeants with great dollops of humor. The main focus is on Sgt. Cutter, chasing after tall tales of golden treasures. It's a rare actioner for Cary Grant, and his lightness is just right for a film that never takes itself seriously even as it develops taut suspense.

Anchoring the trio is Sgt. MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), who dotes over his elephant Annie and tries to protect Cutter from his own hare-brained schemes. He's just as funny in his own way, leaving Sgt. Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks Jr., displaying some nice Errol Flynnish dash) as the one with the love interest and grounding enough to know he needs to chuck his boyish pals and grow up.

If ""Gunga Din"" was a Lifetime movie, it would be about Joan Fontaine's efforts to save her man from his two loser friends and their skull crushing hijinks. But since it's a guys' film, the accent here is on how the threesome must stay together and save Ballantine from a fate worse than death, not only marriage, but as Cutter indignantly exclaims several times, the tea business, too.

The political correctness police are hard on this film, not so much for the gender issue but the idea of British soldiers saving poor Indians from the vicious Thuggies. It reeks of colonial apologia. Thankfully, this film was made back when, and the producers thus felt no need to spell out the obvious liberalism at the heart of the film, that these three sergeants, so full of derring-do and false racial pride, have to be saved along with the rest of their army by a humble bhisti that only one of the three had any time for when he sought their approval. After all, for all their swashbuckling glory, the film's true sacrifice involves the title character, played so heart-wrenchingly by Sam Jaffe.

Back when this film was made, movie mogul Jack Warner had a saying: You want to send a message, use Western Union. Still, it seems like the messages were flying fast and furious in ""Gunga Din."" I watch the film now and wonder if audiences back then were meant to wonder what Gunga Din was really up to when he led Cutter to the golden temple. Was he really plotting revenge against his British overlords? Would he have been justified in doing so, especially given MacChesney's cold treatment of him? When Col. Weed delivers that eulogy, the poem by Rudyard Kipling on which the film is loosely based, was it with a nod in the direction of imperialism's folly, of lording it over someone who proved ""a better man than I am"" in the end? What did they make of the Guru's great speech, delivered in perfect clipped English: ""You have sworn an oath as soldiers to maybe die for a faith, which is your country, England. Well, I can die for my country and my faith as readily as you...India, farewell.""

Of course, the same character also instructs his brutal followers: ""Kill for the love of killing! Kill for the love of Kali! Kill! Kill! Kill!"" Which means we are allowed to hate him and root for the British, and save the questions about what it all means for later.

What ""Gunga Din"" means to me, most of all, is the quickest, surest 90-minute thrill ride on video. Cutter never found his golden temple, but there's one for all of us watching ""Gunga Din.""",Positive "This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.",Positive "This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film.

Absolutely give this one a miss.",Negative "Slaughter High starts like any other day at Doddsville County High School where little minx Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) has tricked resident nerd Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) into the girls locker rooms where she tells him to get undressed in the shower, while doing so Carol's gang of friends come in & give the now naked Marty a big surprise as they film him as they stick his head down the girls toilet in an April fool's day joke. The school's sports coach (Marc Smith) saves Marty & punishes the gang who rather harshly blame Marty, they decide to play another trick on him only this time things get out of hand & Marty is caught in an explosion & has nitric acid splashed over his face. Years later & the whole gang are invited to a class reunion at the now closed down school, they all arrive to discover they are the only ones there. They all venture inside where they quickly learn they aren't the only ones there as Marty is back & has revenge on his mind...

Originally shot under the title April Fool's Day which they changed probably because of another slasher film named April Fool's Day (1986) made the same year this American English co-production is unusual in that it has three credited writers & directors, George Dugdale, Mark Ezra & Peter Litten (after never seeing a film with three credited director's I've now seen two in a week the other being the Jean-Claude Van Damme flick Kickboxer (1989)) & I have to say I really rather liked Slaughter High even though it seems to have a pretty bad reputation. One of the things I like about the script is that it is a pure unashamed slasher flick, it doesn't try to be anything else & it just accepts the genres rules, short comings & trappings & plays up to them. Basically it delivers what it promises, a homicidal killer, blood, boobs & babes. I thought the character's were alright, the story was OK even though it's just an excuse to get a load of teens inside an isolated location so some killer can bump them off one at a time & I actually liked the twist ending as well which is also something for which Slaughter High gets a lot of flak for. The first half starts off a little slow but the second half moves along at a rate of knots as there is one gory killing after another. Some of the situations & character reactions make little sense but the same can be said of just about any film ever made so who's complaining?

Despite three credited director's Slaughter High turned out pretty good, I liked the look of the film a lot. The isolated rundown school made for a really atmospheric location & looked good, the makers throw in a good thunderstorm as well & there's some nice photography especially at the end where there are numerous impressive uninterrupted long lasting stedicam tracking shots which follow Carol through various corridors of the rundown school. While not particularly stylish it certainly looks nice enough & is professionally made. There is some good gore here including burnt bodies, people melted with acid, impalings, stomach explosions, axes in faces & death by lawnmower as well as someone who gets drowned in fecal matter down a drain! The special effects are also better than one would expect & I was both impressed & pleased with the higher than expected body count.

Technically the film is better than I had expected & beats most low budget horror crap that gets released today, I would have thought it was relatively low budget itself though. Supposedly set in America this was very obviously shot in England. Harry Manfredini composes another score which sounds exactly like all of his other musical scores & is basically the same as the theme from Friday the 13th (1980) & it's sequels. Anyone living here in the UK will probably recognise Billy Hartman who played Frank as a regular in Emmerdale Farm (one of our nations top rated soap operas) in which he plays Terry Woods! While most horror fans will recognise the sexy Caroline Munro in a rare staring role. Legendary exploitation producer Dick Randall did the deed on Slaughter High & actually appears in the film as a porno movie producer... talk about typecasting! You can also see a poster for the misunderstood brilliance that was Pieces (1982) which he also produced behind him in his office.

Slaughter High is a slasher film that I liked a lot, did you see that? I didn't say it was great I actually said I liked it on a personal level & I'm sure the predictable plot & lack of story will probably put many off so I can't recommend it but I can say I liked it, make of that what you want. Make sure you you watch the uncut version if you ever decide you want to check it out. If your not a fan of the slasher flick genre then Slaughter High won't change your mind but if your looking for a simple & effective slasher then you could do a lot worse than this.",Positive "This is a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets) – though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italian…but hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely!

LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero – he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave – in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element – after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale – who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condor…which is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!!",Negative "There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political ""thriller"" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed ""edginess"" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.",Negative "Possible spoilers re: late-appearing cameos

Seldom does one see so many fine & memorable character actors (almost entirely actresses to be precise) in one film. Even though a few only appear for cameos, each one is a gem. The British do this mix of comedy and real-life pathos better than anyone IMO, so it is no surprise that most of the actors are Brits.

The music is great; no doubt much had to be dubbed (does Leslie Caron *really* play the bass so well? maybe - who knew?) But Clio Lane was unmistakably herself - her warm visceral sound still turns my crank like few other jazz singers.

As an aging musician myself, not quite as old and certainly not in that class of course, it was a heartening film as well -- a great film for anyone whose wondering if they're past it in their profession or avocation whatever it may be. And of course a great celebration of the life of the stage.

I missed a little of the opening, but a provisional 9/10 -- and it certainly makes we want to see the whole thing.",Positive "I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.

That said...

This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because ""oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs."" In this case, apparently so.

Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.

I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html",Negative "Hi, Everyone, If you saw ""Singing in the Rain,"" you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, ""Make 'em Laugh."" If you saw ""Royal Wedding,"" you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw ""Jailhouse Rock,"" you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.

That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's ""I Can Do That."" the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.

Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.

The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.

Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.

Tom Willett",Negative I can't believe we don't have that 70's show anymore. I have all 8 seasons of that 70's show!! I absolutely Love It!! I lay in the bed every night and watch several episodes before I go to sleep. At the end of a long busy day it's nice to kick back and have a great laugh before you go to sleep. I was so sad they took the show off air... at least we still have the re-runs!! I am hoping and praying they will come back with at least a reunion...Like maybe when Donna finishes college and we finally get to see her and Eric get married!!!! Wouldn't that be awesome!!! It would be even better if they would continue it for several years!!,Positive "This miracle of a movie is one of those films that has a lasting, long term effect on you. I've read a review or two from angry people who I guess are either republicans or child beaters, and their extremist remarks speak of the films power to confront people with their own darkest secrets. No such piece of art has ever combined laughter and tears in me before and that is the miracle of the movie. The realism of the movie and it's performance by Bret Carr is not to be missed. The very nature of it's almost interactive effect, will cause people to leave the theater either liberated or questioning their very identity. Bravo on the next level of cinema.",Positive I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it,Positive "Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -

The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -

This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ----",Positive "Usually musicals in the 1940's were of a set formula - and if you studied films you know what I'm talking about - a certain running lenghth, very ""showy"" performances that were great on the surface but never got into the real personalities of the characters etc.

THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT - and light years better and well worth it's nomination for best picture of the year - 1945 (although had no chance of beating the eventual winner - Lost Weekend).

Gene Kelly was probably in the best form of his career - yes I know about ""American in Paris"" and ""Singing in the Rain"". This one is different. He really gets into his character of a ""sea wolf"" thinking (at first) that ""picking up any girl while on leave"" is nothing more than a lark. And if you had to make up a ""story"" to get her - so be it - until. Sort of like the Music Man when he gets ""his foot caught in the door"". The eventual hilarity of the film stems mostly from his and his new pal (Sinatra)'s attempt to make the ""story"" good in order to ""get the girl"" that he REALLY and unexpectedly falls in love with. You are going to have to see the movie to see what I mean.

Besides that there are so many other elements of great film in this one, it's a classic buddy story, nostalgia to a time when WWII was almost over (the war ended about a month after the films release), a realization that a guy that always laughed at life can find out that he really is a great human being, great songs and probably a few other elements of classic film making that I can't think of right now.

Why not a 10? Near the end - at nearly 2 1/2 hours starts to feel a bit long. There is a small ballet number that Gene Kelly does that must have been a sensation in 1945 but seems dated and feels like it just adds minutes now. But overall, this ones a definite winner on every level.",Positive "Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.

Let me tell you about my experience...

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

...I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like ""Baby Genuises"" terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See ""The Grudge."" Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.

0/10",Negative "This is by far the funniest short made by the two comic geniuses. From the time they walk in, to the time Hardy just falls off the roof, this keeps me laughing hysterically. I highly suggest that every fan of Laurel and Hardy should see this short. I also recommend all of the Ghost Series. If you are looking for laughs, see this movie and you will be happy.",Positive "I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with ""Der Fuhrer's Face."" The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.

There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.",Negative "I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now!",Positive "Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this ""movie"" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.

Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.

I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.

Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.

Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.

Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong...",Negative "More of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.

It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.

There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.

Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.

I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting.",Negative "Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial (""with the taste of beef stew"" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a ""Let Fingers Do It"" commercial, or singing ""Four Leaf Clover"" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in ""The Dealers"" movie, and on ""Channel One Evening News"" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. ""Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!"" Other outrageous bits include ""The Koko Show"" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the ""people over ten"" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of ""Fanny Hill""! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while ""Please Stand By"" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on ""The Dealers"" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the ""Four Leaf Clover"" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of ""Just You, Just Me"" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's ""Move On Up"" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things...",Positive "Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.",Negative "Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for ""millions of years"". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.

Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as ""cromosonic anomaly"". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.",Negative "Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a ""memoir"" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.

It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry.

SPOILER COMING UP:

THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.

The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.

At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.

Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer.

Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.

How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that ""Fighting Mac"", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have.",Positive "Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4",Negative "While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!",Negative "I had no expectations other than to be entertained for 90 minutes, and that is exactly what I was.

Of course it is campy, of course some of the dialog wasn't perfect, of course the ""special effects"" were a bit hokey. That is exactly why I enjoyed the movie so much. It is a perfect fit for this genre of a 70's Horror classic.

The talent needs to start some where, that goes for the actors and the crew, and what better piece of material to sharpen your skills on than this.

I for one look forward to another film from these producers and directors.",Negative "While in the barn of Kent Farm with Shelby waiting for Chloe, Clark is attacked and awakes in a mental institution in the middle of a session with Dr. Hudson. The psychologist tells him that for five years he has been delusional, believing that he has come from Krypton and had superpowers. Clark succeeds to escape, and meets Lana, Martha and Lex that confirm the words of Dr. Hudson. Only Chloe believe on his words, but she is also considered insane. Clark fights to find the truth about his own personality and origin.

""Labyrinth"" is undoubtedly the most intriguing episode of ""Smallville"". The writer was very luck and original denying the whole existence of the powerful boy from Krypton. The annoying hum gives the sensation of disturbance and the identity mysterious saver need to be clarified. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): ""Labirinto"" (""Labyrinth"")",Positive "Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.

The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.

Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look ""hip"" to his Sundance buddies and show how ""edgy"" a filmmaker he is.

Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?",Negative "The most agile fat guy in martial arts does it again. An early Sammo film that has him imitating his character's hero, Bruce Lee, Sammo is amazingly Lee like in his actions and fighting. The way he slips into Bruce's style and then back to his own, more familiar kung fu is a joy to watch and shows how accomplished and adaptable he is at his art. Throw in a bit of slapstick humour so beloved of this type of flick and this a movie that has it all - comedy (some unintentional, like the fake black guy), action and some incredible fight scenes.

A great beer and buddies movie that is worth an hour and a half of anyone's time.",Positive "The same night that I watched this I also watched ""Scary Movie 4,"" making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.

The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.

I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by ""there"" I mean to the level of ""Scary Movie 4."" **1/4",Negative "There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.",Positive "I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.",Negative "I guess I've seen worse films, but that may be becuz I'm so jaded by how standard these bad horror movies are. The killer monster thing is really really bad, basically its a guy in some kind of green body suit. There is much worse acting as far as B movie go, but don't think for a second this was anything stellar, hell no. It actually did have a plot with substance, but was still pretty stupid. Basically its just a bad low budget horror movie. But at least its not as bad as titanic, that movie sucks balls, this one just sucks. The blood looks really fake in this movie. Thats one complaint I have about all the horror of the new millinium, low grade gore, looks stupid. A good gruesome death scene with really fake blood is so stupid. At least there was a nice shower scene",Negative """A Thief in the Night"" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel ""Distant Thunder,"" are must see movies. Even with the new ""Left Behind"" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--""A Thief in the Night"" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered.",Positive "I saw this show about 3-4 years ago. It was dam Funny! When i first time i saw it was playing on ETV(Estonian Television) And i started to like it. Too bad that that show is on bad time for me. Hyde is like a cool guy who likes to sing Frank Sinatra! And he comes on stupid ideas. He got these glasses which h are brown. I like it . And there's FeZ. The group Pervert. We all know what he does when his alone..... He wants to get laid badly. He even had it with his boss in one episode.His from India. And there is Michael , The stupidest guy on whole group , probably stupidest in town and his a cop! He is so stupid that i remember follows: Hyde says: Did u called cops ? - No Michael comes in and says. Does anyone know how to turn off siren? He is a town playboy. Then comes Jackie , who is former girlfriend of Michael and then she's Hyde's girlfriend. Then is Eric Who's son of grumpy war veteran and son of Kitty the housewife. His one big pussy. But he loves Donna , his girlfriend with who they plan for they're marriage. Donna is one hot girl. Hmm what i forget? ah Hyde lives in a basement .",Positive "I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.

Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).

Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies.",Negative "Hotel Du Nord is a gripping drama of guilt in which Marcel Carne portrayed an entertaining tale of ill-fated love which also functions as a revolt against the cruel world.The film is based entirely on a pair of hapless lovers.Pierre and Renee were mistaken when they believed that suicide would put an end to their misery.Hotel Du Nord has its own inimitable charm as its inhabitants have become an essential part of the establishment.There is an element of togetherness as everyone flocks to Hotel Du Nord to eat,chat etc.Marcel Carne has remained true to the spirit of the films produced in 30s and 40s as Hotel Du Nord has a certain kind of nostalgic feel.Carne,while recreating the life of Parisian roads was able to create a sort of nostalgia for black and white giving a unique genre of poetic realism to his oeuvre.Hotel Du Nord can be termed as a quintessence of cinematographic populism.The 14th July ball scene on the banks of Saint Martin canal remains a magnificent sequence.The film's immense popularity can be judged from the fact that Hotel Du Nord has been declared as a national monument.",Positive "The events of the 11th of September 2001 cast its shadow on this Oscar award ceremony with a one minute silence before the in memoriam montage and there was little in the way of the all singing all dancing comedy extravaganza that we`d come to expect of this award show but this was by no means a bad thing . Entertainment was more or less curtailed to a LOTR send up with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson and that was it . The rest of the show was taken up with clips from the nominations and I have to admit this was actually more enjoyable than the overblown song and dance numbers we`ve seen over the years and Whoopi Goldberg was by no means a bad presenter unlike the very esoteric David Letterman from a few years ago and the one minute silence for the victims of 9/11 was haunting and dignified

As for the awards New Zealand was absolutely robbed . FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING went home with four minor awards while A BEAUTIFUL MIND undeservingly picked up most of the major prizes except for best actor which should have gone to a tough guy New Zealander but went to an An all American nice guy instead . The only Oscar awards I agreed with apart from the ones presented to FELLOWSHIP were the awards for best supporting actress and best supporting actor , both correct calls .",Positive "This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?

Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!

I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.

PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.

If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.",Negative "This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape.",Positive "This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.

At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.

***Careful, spoilers ahead***

It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!

I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.

This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.

I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.

I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.",Negative "The Fallen Ones starts with archaeologist Matt Fletcher (Casper Van Dien) in the desert discovering the mummified remains of a 42 foot tall giant, now there's something you don't see everyday. Matt is working for property developer Morton (Robert Wagner) who wants to build a holiday resort on the land & he calls in fellow archaeologist Angela (Kristen Miller) for reasons I'm unsure of. Anyway they both try to figure out what they've got on they're hands when some of the team go missing, Morton calls in security guy Ammon (Navid Negahban) to handle the situation. Meanwhile ancient text translator the Rabbi Eli Schmidtt (Tom Bosley) translates some ancient text (as he would) & is shocked to learn of a evil prophecy in which these giants will rise up & take over the world for the Fallen One, or something like that. It's up to Matt to save the day & the whole planet...

Written & directed by Kevin VanHook, who also has a small role in the film as the ancient warrior leader at the start, I personally thought The Fallen Ones was a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are so many things that are just plain bad about The Fallen Ones both on a technical & conceptual level, the script doesn't make a whole lot of sense & it doesn't really get going until the final 20 odd minutes by which time I had almost lost the will to live. The character's are awful & as clichéd as you like, the dialogue is bad as in very, very bad & the entire film is predictable, I mean it's not going to come as a surprise that Casper Van Dien is going to save the day is it? It's not a huge surprise that the mummified giant is going to come back to life either so why wait until over an hour into the film when most of the audience will be in some sort of comatose state. This is bad, very bad. You have been warned.

Director VanHook doesn't impress, the fight scenes are absolutely awful & why dress your bad guys up in a horrible shade of purple? They look naff. To give it a bit of credit the special effects on the giant Mummy itself are actually good although there's not that many of them since he doesn't make an appearance for over an hour, there are also some normal sized Mummy's that look to have come straight from the set of The Mummy (1999), unfortunately these aren't used to any great effect & in fact are wasted as some comic relief. The mechanical Mummy was a pretty good idea but looked silly & there is no way on Earth that all those people inside could work in sync with each other to operate it, actually the more I think about the more ridiculous the idea is. Forget about any scares, tension or atmosphere & don't even think about any gore or violence because there isn't any.

Technically The Fallen Ones isn't anything special & apart from the impressive giant Mummy effects there's little her to get excited about. The ghost CGI & water effects are terrible, it was made-for-TV & it's shows. The acting was poor, Wagner looks embarrassed & this is probably the only thing the likes of Dien & Bosley can get these days.

The Fallen Ones is a bad film, there's no two ways about it as far as I'm concerned. Not recommended on any level or in any way, one to avoid.",Negative "A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.

This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.

The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.

In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out.",Positive "After ""Star Wars: A New Hope"" redefined science fiction, and ""The Empire Strikes Back"" redefined ""Star Wars"", it's hard to believe that the third and final film of this trilogy can manage to be as good as the other two, but this one really does a nice job. The first part of the film resolves the cliffhanger left by the previous one, with an elaborate escape plan that is in keeping with the incredible suspense and action of the first two films. Then the film moves back to the rebel alliance and what's going on in the war. There is a lot of action in the scenes building up to the rebellion's final confrontation with the Emperor. When the battle begins, the audience is already on the edge of their seats from everything leading up to it, and this final battle is even more intense than those from the other films. This climax is definitely more dense with action than any other part of the trilogy, with the most at stake for the rebellion. This is continually changing between a ground battle between the rebel strike crew on land (including Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Leia), the battle raging on in space (including Lando), and a confrontation between Luke and the Emperor on the new Death Star, which leads up to another duel with Darth Vader. It is really intense since the rebels constantly seem to be losing the battle that will determine the outcome of the war, and there seems to be no escape. Although I think the idea of Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers is a bit far-fetched, it didn't seem very unrealistic since they were more of a distraction that the rebels could use, rather than an actual threat to the stormtroopers, although they did have some luck fighting them. There is also a twist or two at the end that nobody saw coming, which may not be quite as stunning as that of ""The Empire Strikes Back"", but still complete a very spectacular trilogy very well. With the light tone of ""A New Hope"" and the more sinnister tone of ""The Empire Strikes Back"", this film really completes them by combining the two in this grand finale. The Special Edition for ""Return of the Jedi"" concentrated on what would have been nice to change, since not much of the original really needed it. Fifteen years of technology advancements didn't seem to make up for fifteen years of deterioration as far as the rancor scene is concerned, and there still is the occasional disappearing TIE fighter, but other than that it was good. The gaping non-threatening Sarlaac's mouth was given moving tentacles and a huge fly-trap looking head that emerged, which definitely added to the suspense. Also, the disco was taken out of Jabba's palace, and the lame ending of the original was replaced by a huge victory celebration spanning the entire galaxy, instead of just a small Ewok village, which was the case of the original and that didn't really end a story this big the way it deserved. It's hard to say which of the three films was the best, but since it's all part of the same story, the over-all trilogy is like one big, outstanding film. A THIRD must-see for film fans.",Positive "THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI arrives in New York City knowing exactly what she wants: to amount to something solid by marrying a millionaire - without losing her virginity. With her knockout good looks she quickly catches the eye of the playboy son of a tycoon, but by staying true to her virtue will she also discover true love?

Jean Harlow sizzles in this excellent little comedy. With her platinum hair & gorgeous accouterments, she is a dazzler. But her beauty should not obscure the fact that she was also a very good actress. She has rightfully earned her spot at the very top of the Hollywood pantheon.

An excellent cast gives Harlow fine support: Lionel Barrymore as the wily old tycoon, wise to Harlow's ways; handsome Franchot Tone as his son, smitten with love; raucous Patsy Kelly, stealing her scenes as Harlow's sidekick; debonair Alan Mowbray, as a well-mannered English Lord; elderly Clara Blandick as Barrymore's feisty secretary; hearty Hale Hamilton as a rich man with an eye for the ladies; muscular Nat Pendleton as a lifeguard who catches Kelly's flirtatious eye; and Lewis Stone, unforgettable in a small role as a bankrupted businessman.

It should be noted that this film was produced soon after Hollywood's Production Code was instituted. A comparison with RED-HEADED WOMAN, made two years earlier, would be fascinating - in which Harlow's character goes after the same ends, but uses very different means.",Positive "William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's ""Most Wanted"" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).

Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide...

**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage",Negative "Warning! Spoilers ahead!

SPOILERS

I've seen movie in German, so it might be, that I missed some clues.

Despite some weakness in the plot, it's a movie that came through to me. I liked especially Lexa Doig's acting. Sometimes I got impression, that she *is* Camille. But I can't stop wondering, what happened at the end with Bob, Cassie and baby. I belive, she, after initially being set on Bob, eventually ended up loving him and regretting what happened with his brother and being forced to lie to him. Otherwise it's a bit strange, that she would carry his baby and love it. It's up to viewer to decide - and I don't like such endings. Dean Cain was as good as ever, Eric Roberts .. well, I've seen him better but also worse.

I believe that the film is more an analysis of human relations and reacting in unexpected situations than a crime story.

Bottom line is, I liked it very much.",Positive "This was a very entertaining movie and I really enjoyed it, I don't normally rent movies like these (ie. indie flicks) however, I was attracted to the film because it had an incredible cast which included Jamie Kennedy, whom I have loved since the Scream trilogy. The movie director took a risk (and it is a risky risk) in telling the lives of many (and I mean MANY) different people and having the intertwine at various intervals. Taking that risk was a good idea because it's end result is an exceedingly good film.

The film has a few MAIN characters; Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) - a disgruntled fortune cookie writer whose relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks because of an argument. Wallace Gregory (John Carroll Lynch) - an airplane loader/technician who has a love for all living things (except, perhaps meter maids) and who despite his good heart has an increasing amount of bad luck. Cyr (Brian Cox) - the owner of a Chinese restaurant/donut shop who is a germaphobe and because of is his fear of germs places his assistant/cook Sung -(Alexis Cruz) under pressure to keep up with his phobia. Ernie - (Christopher Bauer) is married to Olive - (Christina Kirk) who he is convinced is trying to; stop him have fun, look ridiculous, go insane, and not live a normal life. They begin to have petty and almost crazy arguments and Olive seriously begins to have doubts about Ernie. Gordon - (Grant Heslov) is a man whose life isn't going very well, as bad things begin to add up in his life he decides to take it in hand. Mitchel - (Jon Huertas) is convinced that Gwen - (Alexandra Westcourt) is the girl of his dreams and that they are destined for each other, though she is more skeptical. He attempts to woo her every chance he gets and he certainly makes attempts! Johnston - (Michael Hitchcock) has just been fired from his job and has doubts about his role as provider, he takes another job that he just isn't suited for. His wife Annelle - (Arabella Field) is comforting through out his job loss experience until she learns that Johnston wasn't quite the loving husband she thought he was.

All in all I definitely suggest this movie!

-Erica",Positive "Carl Panzram lived an amazing life and scribbled down his memoirs on scraps of paper for possibly the only person who ever did anything selfless for him. The book ""Panzram: A Journal of Murder"" by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long, which came out the better part of a century after Panzram's death, gives the historical context to a first-generation American's account of running away from home to go west and be a cowboy, getting caught, thrown in the boy's home, getting away repeatedly and thrown into prison over and over all the time getting tortured and sodomized. As Panzram grew huge and strong, he sought to take revenge for the wrong done to him as he traveled to South America, Europe and Africa, and it didn't matter what people he raped, robbed, or murdered because we are all equally worthless.

This film casts skinny James Woods as the rough neck, mean-ass, son of a bitch Carl Panzram who in the film is a ""drunk"", overly-dramatic and emotional, and who never mentions the joy of sodomizing men and boys. The film neither elaborates on anything else particularly of note about this world traveler and career prisoner (like robbing former President Taft or being released from the Oregon prison as long as he gave his word to return). In short, I don't think Carl would be too happy.",Negative "Kill Me Later"" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to ""kill her later.""

The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting ""cool"" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.

Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.

The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.",Negative "Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10",Negative "I had initially heard of TEARS OF KALI a while back and it sounded like something I'd be into, but with all the films I have coming in on a regular basis, it kinda fell off my radar. While roaming around the local WonderBook...I spotted the box for this one and grabbed it up. I have to say I'm pretty glad I did. TEARS OF KALI is a strange, gory, sometimes downright creepy film which is somewhat constrained by it's obviously low budget - but is still an entertaining and worthwhile watch.

TEARS OF KALI centers around the fictional India-based Taylor-Erikkson cult group, that practices meditation and other rituals in the pursuit of facing and banishing the individual's ""inner demons"" - but apparently these techniques work either all too well or not well enough (depending on your viewpoint...) as dark forces are not only exorcised, but also unleashed upon hapless victims.

The film is told ""anthology-style"", with a short but memorable and ""eye-opening"" intro sequence, and then proceeding into the three stories that make up the bulk of the film.

The first (SHAKTI) is about a journalist who visits one of the cult-members who is being held at a mental hospital. The journalist goes in under cover of wanting to research the Taylor-Erikkson cult, but we find that her true motives may hit a little closer to home. When the interview takes a violent turn, the journalist finds that she may have gotten in over her head...

The second part (Devi) concerns a violent young man who is sentenced to psychological rehab in lieu of a prison sentence for beating a young man into a coma. We find that the treating doctor in question is actually a Taylor-Erikkson ""alumni"", and his rehabilitation methods are far from the norm...

The closing story (KALI) revolves around a quack ""faith-healer"" and his assistant who perform ""miracles"" for a fee. When the healer unwittingly helps one of his clients and actually expels a force which had been possessing her, the demon is now free to roam and looking for a new host...

I gotta say I really enjoyed TEARS OF KALI. There are some faults with the film that keep it from being truly excellent - but it is an original and ambitious film for what it is. My biggest gripe with the production is the poor and uninspired over-dubbed dialogue. The dubbing is sub-par and I would have much preferred to have a subtitled option with the original language track. Some reviewers have said the acting is poor, which I don't necessarily agree with. I think that the dubbing is so lack-luster that it makes the performances seem stunted, which isn't really the case. In fact, a few of the performances are pretty damn chilling (the ""doctor"" in the second segment, and the ""client"" in the third readily come to mind...) and notable. The gore FX are very well done for a low-budget film, with some graphic scenes of eyelid-removal-via-cuticle-scissors, a pencil-in-the-throat-suicide, some decent (but irritatingly ""shaky"") self-flaying, and a few other goodies thrown in for good measure. Not as rough as some of the more ""extreme"" gore films out there, but definitely stronger than your average horror fare. I also found the story concerning the cult-group to be intriguing and a welcome change to the typical horror-story nonsense. There are plenty of scenes of genuine atmosphere and tension, the likes of which I haven't come across in a while. Although flawed in some fundamental ways, I still think TEARS OF KALI will appeal to most ""underground"" horror viewers - some scenes may prove too much for the more mainstream viewer. Definitely Recommended - 8.5/10",Positive "When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.

I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a ""1.1"" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.

I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.

I liked it.",Negative "Red Rock West (1993)

Nicolas Cage gets embroiled in a deadly crime without at first knowing it, and the dominos lead to increasing peril, adventure and misadventure in the wild forlorn American West of the 1990s. Red Rock West is often brutal and sometimes hilarious, and Cage pulls off the mixture with his usual sardonic wit and wary ease.

Is the plot over the top? Yes. Is Dennis Hopper perfect as a crazed, almost likable killer? Yes. Does Cage stand a chance? Well, you have to watch and see. It never lets up, and it took me by surprise the first time I saw it. On second viewing yesterday, I was surprised at how well it held up, how well constructed it was, and how macabre and funny it was at the same time.

Director Ron Dahl (who also helped write) is known more for his TV work, but with Rounders and this film he shows a deft hand with sensational plots. It's saved by its humor by the way, and by the caricatures. The bar is sleazy, the cops questionable. And don't miss a really inspired cameo by Dwight Yoakam as a truck driver.",Positive "didn't know anything about the film or that it was based on a best selling book.Tried guessing from the opening scenes what it would be about,best guess,buried treasure and a death list.That lasted about 15 minutes when i got the sneaky suspicion that the film was crap.I'll not bore you with how bad the plot and acting were but anyone who gave it more than two stars must work for the film makers.I watched until the hero jumped into his corvette to rush to the hospital.He had his on his suit,shirt and tie arrived at the hospital in jeans and a t/shirt.Couldn't even get the continuity right. I got the Christian theme,hard to miss it .",Negative "I watched, entranced and mesmerized, by the vocal and physical acting. The roles each character played were done with excellence.The lyrics,the words, every gesture, the sunrise, told it all.The movie spoke to me. It enlightened me to a different perception of a person who believes in mankind. Who believes in peace and gentle behavior. I was also held in disbelieve, by the sacrifices and human dignity was portrayed. Power without grace, is demented and without feelings. To want power at the cost of mankind, is so unbelievable. This movie made me so afraid for the people who are no longer in this world. And, it is with sadness that I think of them. I like this movie for the conversations and face expressions to it all. May this movie be blessed.",Positive "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996) D: Jonathan Winfrey. Scott Valentine, Janet Gunn, Rick Dean, Anthony Peck, Rodger Halston, Terri J. Vaughn, Billy Burnette. Why even bother reviewing this movie? Another stupid dinosaur movie in which top secret military guys discover those lethal (and very fake-looking) prehistoric monsters running around killing people in gory ways. The original was bad enough, the sequel was even worse. This falls somewhere in between, though unrelated to either of the previous CARNOSAUR films. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, and profanity.",Negative "The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.

The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.

Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.

Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.

When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.

In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.",Negative "Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of ""Whistle down the wind"". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.",Negative "I think that this movie was reasonbaly good. It's kinda weird that now the Olsen twins are 13 and have boyfriends and all. I enjoyed them alot when they were little kids on Full House. Anyway, the casting was good and the movie was somewhat funny. I kind of got mixed up between all the switching places and their names. It's just kind of an older version of It Takes Two.",Positive "Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.

I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.

I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.",Negative "Bette Midler is again Divine! Raunchily humorous. In love with Burlesque. Capable of bringing you down to tears either with old jokes with new dresses or merely with old songs with more power & punch than ever. All in All Singing new ballads, power-singing the good old/perennial ones such as ""The Rose""; ""Stay With Me"" and yes, even ""Wind Beneath My Wings"". The best way to appreciate the Divine Miss M has always been libe - since this is the next best thing to it, I strongly recommended to all with a mixture of adult wide-eyed enchantment and appreciation and a child's mischievous wish for pushing all boundaries!",Positive "Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can.",Positive "I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.

I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.",Negative "are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of ""fisher folk."" My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.",Positive "I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.",Positive "I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word ""Daddy"", makes the entire movie worth seeing).

""Knudsen!!!!!!!""",Positive "I really liked this film. All three stars(Connery,Fishburne and Underwood) give credible performances;and Harris is enjoyably over the top. The lighting and shot angles in some of Harris' scenes make his face look truly diabolical. The surprising turn of plot at the end makes it interesting. Not a great movie, but an enjoyable one. I gave it 7 of 10.",Positive "It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.

Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.

Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.

But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.

That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.

The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing ""Newfoundland"" as ""New Fownd Land,"" Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.

Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.

Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.

Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.

Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.",Negative "Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her ""smash-hit one-woman show.""

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her ""superstar summer,"" to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back ""to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room.""

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is ""Shashonna,"" a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from ""Like a Virgin,"" there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song ""Four Women"" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as ""my skin is black,"" ""my hair is wooly,"" and ""they call me Sweet Thing.""

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: ""Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening.""

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying ""Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!""

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, ""I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!""

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: ""When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real.""

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, ""Eventually everyone will funk!""

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend ""in the know"" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else.",Positive "This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.

Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in ""The Godfather"") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew – Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.",Negative "I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.

The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.

Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).

Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...",Negative "getting to work on this film when it was made back in the summer of 1990. Shot partly in the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC and the remaining parts in Winston-Salem. The massive offices of the RJ Reynolds were used in several office scenes and places in around the beautiful city that is know as the tulip capital of the world Winston-Salem! I enjoyed my work although it was exceedingly hard work building all the sets like the Golf of Mexico where Renee Russo and Jim Belushi went on their date. I also had a big hand in decorating the bar where Larry encounters the magical bartender Mr. Destiny. I tacked all those pics on the wall of sports heroes and decorated that phone booth where larry makes a phone call for a cab. I even put my mothers photo at eye level so i could freeze frame it and show it to her when we watched it. I remember dyeing the grass at his old house with green dye because it first had to be sodded(it was a new house in a new development and I guess they leased it for the movie)..then I had to cut that newly laid sod to make it look nice..man that was hard! As far as the movie, when we made it we had no idea what it would be like but after seeing it i fell in love with it because really tells the story of ""what if"" as good as I ever had seen it, including the great It's a Wonderful Life. I cried so many times

i can't count. I got to meet the wonderful actor Michael Caine while shooting scenes at an old minor league ballpark where Larry's boyhood scenes were played and replayed. I remember after he had done a take an was heading back to his trailer, I ran him down and asked him for a picture and he was quite amiable and said ""why not!"" He is a good guy and a really natural and forceful actor. I can't say the same for Jim Belushi..he was so full of himself, smoking big cuban cigars and talking loudly so

everyone in earshot could hear his every word. His career never did take off but he has had a decent TV career recently. I would say watch this movie if you ever get the chance. It's wonderful and really heartfelt and real. You can feel Larry's pain after he enters into the new world Mr. Destiny gives him after hitting the homer, and as he wants so badly for people to believe he is not this bad guy everyone thinks he is. They all think he belongs in a nuthouse! But eventually he wins people over but by then he wants his real life back so badly, especially his wonderful wife, played so beautifully by Linda Hamilton..and he wants his dog back! So see it.",Positive "there should be a sub-genre in the Western called 'the Robert Mitchum Western'. Mitchum's brilliant, idiosyncratic, usually undervalued Westerns import his film noir persona to etch some compellingly dark character sketches, and bring an elegiac world-weariness more familiar from the films of Sam Peckinpah. 'Man with the gun' is one of his best. Directed by Orson Welles protege Richard Wilson, it is a stark, monochrome beauty, full of chilling silhouettes and terrifying outbursts of savage violence, as Mitchum comes to tame a town terrorised by a monopolist with a private army. Mitchum's regression from soft-spoken stranger to deranged murderer, with a host of dark emotions in between, is a marvel of expressive, physical acting.",Positive "This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.",Positive "There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the ""chief attorney"" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, ""Post No Bills."") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of ""On the Waterfront"" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in ""Boomerang,"" that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.

Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.

And nobody is helped by the writing. When a ""B girl"" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. ""I only know one word,"" she says, ""Si. Yes."" The writers have not trusted the audience to know that ""si"" in Spanish means ""yes."" The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere.",Negative "Rosenstrasse is a touching story of courage in adversity. Reichdeutch women find that their Jewish Husbands have been locked up pending deportation. One an aristocrat disowned by her family, Lena Fischer, finds herself among the mob as does General Gudarian's sister. But rank and privilege merit no special consideration.

Nor does service to the Reich as a female detainee whose husband is on the Ostfront will learn. In one of the most horrifying scenes of the movie, the guards take the wedding band given by her soldier husband.

Lest you think this is typical German brutishness we in America today have Lady Bush imperiously ordering the arrest of Gold Star Mothers (mothers of US service-members killed in action) because their very presence is offencive. Little, regrettably, has changed in the 60 years from Der Fuher to Der Fumbler.

Fortunately the eight year old daughter Ruth escapes capture.

Waiting in the cold on Rosenstrasse Lena Fischer is at first reluctant to take in Ruth responding in a way that we take as typically German. Even Lena Fisher's brother Colonel Arthur von Eschenbach who is aware of and opposed to the Holocost cautions Lena against it. but Lena chooses to embrace the idea with an American rebelliousness even renaming Ruth, the more aryan sounding name Helga Lehmann.

The siege ends favourably on Rosenstrasse but Lena mourns: What happened to Ruth after the war? Years later Ruth's daughter Hannah sets out in search of her mother's past and meets 90 year old Lena under the guise of writing a personal history of the war.

I did deem it interesting that Hannah wanted so much to look up the family but never checked on the fate of her grandfather last known to have served on the Ostfront.",Positive "The comedic might of Pryor and Gleason couldn't save this dog from the tissue-thin plot, weak script, dismal acting, and laughable continuity in editing this mess together. It has a very few memorable moments, but the well dries up quickly. As a kid I remember this as a Luke-warm vehicle for the two actor-comedians, but there was always something strange about the flow and feeling of what was being conveyed in each scene and how this ties to the plot overall. Watching it again after many years, it screams schlock-a-mania. I'm not so concerned with the racial controversy, as I wouldn't mind seeing a movie take that issue on with a little levity. The most obvious fault to me is that the scenes are laid out like a jumbled, non-related series of 2 minute situation comedy bits (any not very good ones at that), that were stapled together by the editor after an all-nighter at the local watering hole. Characters change feelings and motivations on a dime, without rhyme nor reason, between scenes and within scenes, making this feel as though no one had any idea of what to get out of the screenplay. Not that it was any gem to start with. I feel bad for the two actors whose legacy is marred by this disaster that should never have been made. Maybe my sense of humor has become too refined...",Negative "Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, ""This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!""). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it.",Negative "Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast.",Positive "I remember that the trailer for Legend of Zu was quite impressive and being a fan of A Man Called Hero (my all time favourite), Storm Riders I decided that I must watch this one too. I know that there is way to much critcism on Ekin Cheng's acting ability everywhere but he is my favourite Hong Kong moviestar so far (way better than Nicolas Tse nevertheless)and he is one of the factors that I enjoyed this movie. Without a doubt this film is a work of art from the beginning to the end. I even thought that only the actors were real and everything else was computer generated by the end of this film. They must have put a lot of work into this one and they deserve good credit for that. The storyline of the movie was a fairytale between good and evil with a love story thrown in (I guess Ekin Cheng pulls the girls easily).The story is not very intellectual and deep but that is not what you expect when watcing an action movie. I wished there were more martial arts action with fists and fist instead of battles with magical abilities, but well that's life and it never goes the way you want it to. And why did they sound like supersonic planes in the battle through the sky in the end ? That's way too funny. Legend of Zu cannot be A Man Called Hero in my eyes but it flows like a videogame and that is not a bad thing at all. If a company decides to publish games on this movie I will not get suprised as it carries all the videogames elements. Good work. Please make more fantasy movies like this",Positive "When I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.

However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.

I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear ""Guts"" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.

Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song.",Negative "It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.",Negative "The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.

I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.

Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.

What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway).",Negative "All the other comments already said what I was going to say, here goes anyway. I thought this was Italian at first, sorry about that, Italy. I wasn't bored because I kept waiting for something to happen. Who did that song about Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather way back when? Was it Alan Parsons? Saw this on a Brentwood 10 pack and the quality was as expected, terrible. Full of streaks and stuff. The movie was an incoherent mess. Goofy music and clueless characters. The main guy should have known in the first minute that the doctor was nuttier than the patients. I thought the ""doctor"" directing the ""battle"" scene was never going to end. Had some good looking babes though. It seems these dumb ass movies always throw in a naked chick or two and that gets you hooked. I gave it a 2 for the nekkid women. That bird people dance made me want to pull out my own eyeballs. Poe probably did about 3,000 rpms in his grave when this thing came out because it was loosely based on a story of his.",Negative "I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.

Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.

The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.

My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.

The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie.",Negative "This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as ""Serie Noire"", ""Buffet Froid"", ""Beau Pere"", all realized by Blier.

However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are ""going places"", but the title in French could be literally translated by ""the waltz dancers"", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles...",Positive "Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see.",Positive "The Good Earth is a great movie!!!Everybody must see...It is tear-jerking and very heart warming. It caters to the enhancement of values-formation on perseverance, humility and the love of family...The story can be related to our life today especially that poverty is at the threshold. The way on how we respond to such problem is very crucial and if a person is not strong enough to face such, he may be left defenseless and useless. I am very pleased on how the characters justified their roles even the young actors...Their emotions has captivated the audience. The movie may have been done in black and white, but the story is so captivating that you do not want to end. That makes it really great! There should be a re-make for this very nice movie.",Positive "OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.",Negative "Worst mistake of my life.

I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, ""Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs"". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",Negative "Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.

This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.

As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.

In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.

It's a bad rip off of ""M"" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.",Negative "What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost.",Negative "...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,""Wow, this is pretty bad."". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.

While watching this I started thinking back to his part in ""Shawshank Redemption"" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.

And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a ""rasta"" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.

I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.

I say BOOOOOOOO.",Negative "Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of ""not without my Daughter""(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most ""inspired"" movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch.",Positive "PUT THE CAMERA ON ME is a deceptively cute film. It is actually a complex glimpse at the psychology of children and offers interesting insights into the development of adults and an artist. On the surface this is a nostalgic look at some home movies made in the 80's by a group of upper class neighborhood kids. One of the film's directors, Darren Stein, had access to a video camera and quickly took over as the artistic leader for all of the movies. Sure, these are just some cute kids having fun. But, this is also much more. This is a look into some moments in time as children grapple with a number of confusing issues that all of us face in life --- fear, sexual awakening, unrequited love, loneliness and just trying to make sense of the adult world which seems to explode all around us. As we get older we tend to forget how overwhlelming the realities of life were when we were little.

What makes this film all the more valid is to watch a young Darren Stein turn into a little general of a filmmaker. It is clear that Darren is running this show and these little movies are his vision but they are all informed by his friends, their problems, the interpersonal dynamics and the general confusion regarding the horrors of adult life. A lot of children make home movies, but I've never heard of or seen children create ""little"" movies about the holocaust, homosexuality, nuclear war and the inability to fit in and make friends. These kids are confronting and dealing with some heavy stuff!

The power of this film is the way Stein and Shell pull various scenes together so tightly with running interviews with the kids --- all now adults and all still friends. This adds a new angle to the film. How many of us have stayed in touch with our childhood friends? These guys have. And, many of the issues with which they were dealing are still running between them two decades later.

Among the conflicts -- a confession of a crush reveals a heart still broken, a very normal childhood sexual experience continues to be a ""sticky"" subject between two of the men, some ongoing resentments over the dynamics of relationships and there is still a member of this team who remains very much in charge and in center stage! Which makes perfect sense as one watches these home movies progress over the course of a couple of years. Darren Stein is a director. No doubt about it.

Stein and Shell take turns chatting with each other from time to time and one can't help but imagine the awkwardness of allowing us to peek into the young lives of these people. This is particularly true for Stein who has gone on to a great deal of success in the entertainment industry as a film producer, writer and director. From the first moment of PUT THE CAMERA ON ME we can see the emergence of a gay little boy trying to figure it all out. We also see sides of the artistic mind and personality that are not always ""nice"" or ""caring"" --- and, this is a bold move for any artist to share with an audience.

There are so many revealing moments, but the most disturbing and complex moments involve a movie in which we see a Jewish concentration camp victim being tortured and killed by a Nazi. We discover thru interviews and narration that the Nazi is played by a Jewish child and the part of the victim is played by a gentile child. It is a painfully disturbing moment that glimpses into the darker side of fear and the way children work thru the horrors of the adult world that are beyond adult understanding much less that of a child.

This is much more than some home movies. This documentary captures the pain, beauty, joy and sadness of growing up. Powerful stuff --- and well worth seeing!

:",Positive "This long episode packs amount of astounding of surprises, thriller, mystery and concerns about a battle of wits of Sherlock against Charles Augustus Milverton, a master blackmailer. This is an excellent overlong runtime of Jeremy Brett-Holmes series. In the film appear usual Holmes's cannon as Inspector Lestrade and Mrs Hudson, though no Moriarty, however is a greatest villain, Charles Augustus.

It's a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue, thrills, and suspense, including an exciting final twist. This is a particular Sherlock movie but we find to Holmes falling in love with a servant, kissing, crying and even robbing. This time along with the episode ¨Scandal in Boheme¨ with Irene Adler, result to be the only one which Holmes is enamored. Top-notch Brett performance, he alongside Peter Cushing are the best Sherlock TV , while in the cinema is forever Basil Rathbone. Brett performs as a resolutive, headstrong, impetuous sleuth. Here Doctor Watson isn't a comic, botcher, and clumsy pal personified by Nigel Bruce, but is an astute and cunning partner well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke, a perfect counterpoint of Brett. Casting is frankly magnificent, special mention to Robert Hardy as astute nasty. Hardy, today famous by role as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter, is a veteran actor with forty years of career and with several success such as, The 10th kingdom and Winston Churchill. Furthermore appear secondaries actors with terrific performances, Nickolas Grace, Sophie Gordon, Serena Gordon, among others. The movie gets a colorful atmosphere , the London streets and 221 Baker Street's house are well designed. The motion picture is well directed by Peter Hammond, director of various episodes. It's a must see for the Arthur Conan Doyle fans.",Positive "Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. ""Men in white"" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option.",Positive "Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost.",Positive "Ok, needless to say, this film is only going to appeal to a certain audience; namely stoners and like-minded people.

That being said, if you are one of these aformentioned people, this film is a MUST. In fact, I think it should be mandatory for head shops to sell a copy of it to anyone purchasing their first bong. What Monty Python's Holy Grail is to geeks and nerds, so is this movie to potheads. I first saw this film 10 years ago or so, and I still crack up every time I watch it. The jokes perfectly lampoon the pothead lifestyle, far better than latter day knockoffs like Half-Baked attempt to.

There isn't a plot, so to speak; the film is more of a collection of various skits; as the films protagonists wander around Los Angeles in their legendary haze. Despite this, the film has an excellent sense of pace, and doesn't drag at all. Many people cite Up In Smoke as C&C's best work, but I would have to say that Next Movie is superior.

So if you're in the mood for an hour and half of belly laughs, light up, tune in, and let your mind float away =)

Oh, and FREE TOMMY CHONG!",Positive "i got to see the whole movie last night and i found it very exciting.it was at least,not like the teen-slasher movies that pop out every now and then.the search for the killer and the 'partner' relationship between the hero&the so-called bad guy was parts i liked about the movie.also,i remember once being on the edge of my seat during a specific scene in the movie.i mean it's exciting.maybe some time later,i might watch the movie again...",Positive "Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: ""What if it was my family? My choice?"" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do!",Positive "Bored with the normal, run-of-the-mill staple films to watch this Halloween that I've seen over and over again, I took a chance on ""The Sentinel"", hoping it could get my horror juices flowing again. Mind you, I had just come back from seeing the Dark Castle remake of ""The House on Haunted Hill"" - complete and utter crap. Thankfully, ""The Sentinel"" BLEW ME AWAY! In a riviting story about a model who moves into a creepy building in Brooklyn Hights, the film offered everything that I hope to find in a good movie - (1) Campy and fantasically juicy characters, exchanges and dialogue, including hilaraious turns by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and especially, Martin Balsam, as an absent minded professor - (2) Horrifying Terror! Not to give a frame away, but there are scenes in this film that chilled me to my pancreas - (3) Fantastic gore, terrific make-up and wacky (if very uneven) direction from Michael Winner, which flows rather nicely with this unreal treat. If you loved ""Evil Dead 2"", ""Dead Alive"" and ""Deep Rising"" - this will be your queen of favourites. Just to emphasize my love for this film - after I watched it for the first time, jaw-dropped, I rewound it and watched it again. It is now one of favourites of all time. Do yourself a favour and check it out!",Positive "The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.

The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.

The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.

The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.

The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.

All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox",Negative "It is always a nice suprise when a film made for TV turns out to be entertaining such as Little Richard. This is a very watchable film about the story of Rock and Roller ,Little Richard played by an actor called Leon who i have never seen before but does an very good job. As most TV films , this is a little tamer than if made for Cinema which is a shame because i am sure there is lot we could have seen about Little Richard that was controversial. Instead we see a lot religous rubbish which is the only thing that spoils the film and eventually spoilt a very promising career. All in all this film is good and the acting is above average fot a TV film. 7 out of 10.",Positive "A bad one.

Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.

Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.

Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.

2 out of 10",Negative "Im gonna make this short and sweet because i don't think there is much you can really tell someone about this show who has never seen it other than its hilariously funny and unique, for me its possibly the funniest show ever.

You have to really watch it to understand its humour and it took me a few episodes to really get into it but once your in there is no getting back out. For example the way Hydes character always wants to see his friends get in some sort of trouble the more it happens the funnier it becomes.

Its all round classic I mean the cast, the writers, the director, its just a recipe for success. One actor i think who always gets a hard time is Ashton Kutcher but i mean he's great in this show i don't think its possible for the the character Kelso to have been played by anyone else, it takes someone very smart to play someone that stupid. All the main characters are great and it wouldn't be a worth while review if i didn't mention the stone cold fox Mila Kunis, now thats a spicy meet a ball ha ha all joking aside amazing show.",Positive "What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, (""Derailed""), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the ""basic instincts."" Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen.",Positive "So I finally saw the film ""My Left Foot"" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.

The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.

There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.

So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.",Negative I really enjoyed the first episode and am looking forward to more. A little soft on the crime front (it's almost an afterthought and not terribly suspenseful or fleshed out) but thought the romance angle was wonderfully charming. Will be watching again for sure!

I'm hoping that they'll have a bigger role for the aunts who are wonderful actresses and were somewhat underused this time around. The actress who plays the assistant/waitress (also from Bewitched I think) is very sweet and bubbly and comes off as nicely dorky and sweet instead of dumb and annoying which is very nice.

Check it out.,Positive "The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's ""So This is Africa"", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.",Negative "Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.

But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.

Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.

If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.

In short, the movie is worth a miss.",Negative "This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8",Positive "Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.

But....

1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.

I'd love to buy the CD.

Tom Paine Texas, USA",Positive "in a not so conventional sense of the word.

This movie was one of my favorites as a young child, and I just recently remembered it, and thought to look it up. While many of the details are no longer clear in my mind, the overall feeling that the movie gave me has stuck with me over the years.

If parents feel that their children can handle mature and sometimes violent themes, then I highly recommend this movie. It taught me a lot about life and death, and brought forth in me a lot of emotion. To this day, it remains one of my favorite films.",Positive "Another rape of History

This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.

The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.

The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.

And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.",Negative "I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing ""Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth"" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:

One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.

I also loved how the ""story"" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.

I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols.",Positive "This work is a bold look into the mindset of men who find themselves in wheelchairs. This film never tries to tone it down, cotton candy-ize, or soft soap the angst, confusion, and pain of what these guys live with. That is its strength, I think.

But more so, the performances are fantastic, with well conceived and delivered dialog, which draws you in and makes you feel a part of the experience. The characters never attempt to block out the audience from knowing what's on their mind-what's in their hearts.

I found it plodding, but enjoyable.

It rates a 6.6/10 from...

the Fiend :.",Positive """Happenstance"" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since ""When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). ""

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for ""Amelie,"" its French title is more apt: ""Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)"" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)",Positive "I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.

It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.

This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.

The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie.",Positive "Although I was in this movie playing the part of Sheriff Hodges, it still managed to make me jump in several places and believe me I'm NOT that easy. You might say that I'm biased about the film, and, OK, I am, but I didn't see the finished product until 12/27/2006 and was extremely pleased. I'm not a Horror film fan as such but love the old ""B"" movies and black and white Sci Fi films. This movie will make you ""think"" you know when something is going to happen, then it doesn't, then it does. It will keep you completely off balance. I would suggest watching the movie first then the director's notes and special features. It is so well written, directed and filmed and I can tell you personally that it was a real joy to work with this cast and crew. I sincerely hope to be part of Brian and Laurence's future projects.",Positive "Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04.

I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying.

It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!",Negative "Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past.",Positive "Hobgoblins....Hobgoblins....where do I begin?!?

This film gives Manos - The Hands of Fate and Future War a run for their money as the worst film ever made. This one is fun to laugh at, where as Manos was just painful to watch. Hobgoblins will end up in a time capsule somewhere as the perfect movie to describe the term: ""80's cheeze"". The acting (and I am using this term loosely) is atrocious, the Hobgoblins are some of the worst puppets you will ever see, and the garden tool fight has to be seen to be believed. The movie was the perfect vehicle for MST3K, and that version is the only way to watch this mess. This movie gives Mike and the bots lots of ammunition to pull some of the funniest one-liners they have ever done. If you try to watch this without the help of Mike and the bots.....God help you!!",Negative "This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective.",Positive "I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.

The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.

One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.

The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.",Negative """Vanilla Sky"" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, ""Abre Los Ojos"" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.",Positive "This is the best made-for-TV movie of all-time! Am I saying this because I'm a huge Silverstone fan? Partially, but even without her, I'd still see it. I'm a fan of serial killer genre films, and believe this to be a great entry in that category. Also, Mary Giordano easily ranks among Alicia's top five character creations. Totally memorable - like she really exists. I'd have her on my side, too, if there was a mystery to be solved. She plays the character, like she does with her real life, with complete confidence in everything she does. Seems sweet, honest, nice...just like she is in real life. So is that acting? Yes, indeed, she's sort of a rebel once again. This time she's not bad, she's too good and a bit afraid to do things that seem above the law. But she doesn't do things the normal teenager would do. Instead, she spends her time reading detective mags and solves crimes. A cliche abounds: she's sort of avenging her father's death, in a different way than vigilante-style. At the time, Alicia seemed to be playing the same characters: rebellious, seductive, without a parent, a loner. This happens here, too, but she's a bit nerdy this time around. That doesn't matter; she's still cool as a nerd. Check this out soon, or else Giordano will be investigating why you haven't...",Positive "I had seen Marion Davies in a couple of movies and really couldn't understand her appeal. She couldn't dance for peanuts, she didn't attempt to sing and as for her acting - she seemed in a trance. But I hadn't seen her silent comedies and this film is wonderful. Rather than kidding her own image, as has been suggested here, to me it seems a satire on Gloria Swanson, who did start off in slapstick comedies, went on to highly emotional women's pictures and did end up marrying a Count. Marion, a top mimic, also did a funny rabbit imitation whenever she wanted to be seen as grand, that was Gloria Swanson spot on!!!

Colonel Pepper (Dell Henderson) has motored all the way from Georgia to Hollywood, determined to prove that his daughter, Peggy, (Marion Davies) will be the greatest star ever. Their hope dwindles and they are down to their last 40 cents when they meet Billy Boone (William Haines) who works at the slapstick studios and promises to get Peggy a job. Peggy thinks she is going to be a great dramatic actress but the studio think she is a fantastic comic. They convince her to make the film and at the preview she is a great success. Charlie Chaplin asks for her autograph but she doesn't recognise him and treats him pretty rudely. ""Who was that short little guy"" - when she finds out she faints!!! Peggy and Billy get a call from High Art Studio but only Peggy is wanted and suddenly she is on her way. There is a funny scene where she sees a star she doesn't think much of - it's Marion Davies!!!

She finally gets a chance of being a dramatic actress - but she can't cry!!! It is a hilarious scene as the director tries everything to get her to cry and when he succeeds, she can't stop!!! Her new leading man, Andre (Paul Ralli) convinces her to forget her comedy past and become elite and sophisticated - she even adopts a new name - Patricia Pepoire!!! She also seems to have forgotten Billy and her dad - she has developed a ""STAR"" personality!!! When the slapstick studio picks the same location as ""Patricia's"" movie, Billy is thrilled to see her but quite unprepared for her snobby attitude. When she calls him a cheap clown he realises that she is not the girl he once knew.

After a studio luncheon ( a magnificent panning shot of some of the greatest stars of the day) ""Patricia"" gets a call from the Boss. It seems her films are a flop and no theatres want to book them - the public are tired of her mannerisms and want the old Peggy back. She and Andre decide to get married, she dreams of being a Countess (even though Billy says that Andre used to serve him spaghetti in a little cafe downtown and is no more a Count than he is). On her wedding day, Billy visits and after a hilarious custard pie fight she realises that Billy is the one for her.

It was amazing to see all the guest stars - John Gilbert is seen going through the MGM gates, Lew Cody is talking to Elinor Glynn, who not only wrote ""It"" but several racy romances that were made into MGM movies. William Haines, another actor whose movies I had always wanted to see, was great - especially in the cafeteria scene , he had wonderful comic timing. Harry Gribbon was hilarious as the comedy director - there were so many hilarious scenes in this film and Marion was at the top of them all - I'm giving this film 10 out of 10.

Highly, Highly Recommended.",Positive "Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.

The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction.

However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)

Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.

Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)

This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.

The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!

What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.

It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...",Negative "OK, I didn't know what to expect when I saw the cover to Fido, honestly when I came across it in the video store I was tempted to rent this movie, but nothing about it really grabbed my attention. But when I was looking around in Netflix, they were advertising this like crazy if I liked ""goofy"" scary movies, so I figured to just give it a shot. I'm so glad that I did watch it, this was just a great movie, it was absolutely hilarious and so charming to watch. Like I said, it's Pleasantville meets Night of the Living Dead, it's just a great concept, what does happen after a mega zombie attack? As we see in another zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead, they have fun by making the zombies left over as ""handy"" citizens. This is a very overlooked horror/comedy movie, I think a lot of people were just so blown away with Shaun of the Dead that this got the boot. But it's a great story and the cast was perfect and made this into just a really funny movie.

In a 1950s alternate universe where radiation from space has turned the dead into zombies. This radiation still plagues humanity, as all those who die after the original contamination turn into the undead. In order to continue living normal lives, communities are fenced with the help of a governing corporation named Zomcon. Zomcon provides collars with accompanying remote controls to control the zombies' hunger for flesh so as to use them as slaves or servants. In the town of Willard, a housewife ,Helen, buys a zombie in spite of her husband Bill's zombie phobia. Their son, Timmy, befriends the zombie, naming him ""Fido"". One day Fido's collar malfunctions and he kills their next door neighbor, who turns into a zombie. Timmy ""kills"" the zombified neighbor. When a pair of local bullies are blamed for the missing neighbor, they capture Fido and Timmy. Helen comes and rescues Timmy and Fido from the bullies and they try to forget about the whole thing. Several days later, the neighbor's body is found and the murder is traced back to Fido, who is taken away to Zomcon where the public is told he will be destroyed. Timmy learns through a friend that Fido is simply working in a factory at Zomcon. Timmy sets out to rescue him with the help from his neighbor with a zombie girlfriend in hopes to get Fido back.

I really do highly recommend this movie if you get the chance to see it, it's so silly but a lot of fun. Billy Connelly did a great job as Fido and really brought, no pun intended, a lot of life into the character. I think the scene that made me laugh the most was when Timmy has to burry the old lady that Fido attacked and killed, his last words to her were so funny, ""you weren't really nice, but you liked flowers, so…"" and he buries her in the garden. Not to mention the neighbor with the zombie girlfriend, sick, disturbing, wrong, but classic laughs. I still love how even though this is like the Leave It To Beaver-esquire type of world, there still is a lot of gore in the movie. So if you do have a chance to see Fido, take it, I promise some good laughs.

9/10",Positive "The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.

I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the ""monster"" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.

As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.

So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film.",Negative Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.

She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.

she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.

Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.

Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937.,Positive "I am wanting to make a ""Holmes with Doors"" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: ""kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13""... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day.",Negative "From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in ""K-19."" Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz.",Positive "There's nothing amazing about 'The Amazing Mr Williams'. Part of this movie's problem is its lead actor Melvyn Douglas. He was a lousy actor and lazy with it. For most of his career, he allowed his good looks, a glib manner and (usually, but not in this movie) some fine scriptwriting to make up for his lack of acting ability. I disliked Douglas as an actor before I knew anything about him as a person; I've learnt enough about him to know that I also despise his politics. I'll give Melvyn Douglas credit for one thing: his chromosomes did produce the incredibly talented and sexy actress Illeana Douglas.

Melvyn Douglas made this movie right after the brilliant 'Ninotchka' ... talk about a comedown! 'The Amazing Mr Williams' is allegedly a comedy, but I never laughed. Douglas plays a plainclothes detective on the homicide squad, named Kenny Williams. I never heard of a police detective named Kenny, but if they called him Kenneth Williams ... well, what a carry-on. The whole city is in a panic because a serial killer is going about, killing women. No motive is given for this; he just likes to kill women. The mayor (Jonathan Hale, better than usual) calls Williams on the carpet to account for his failure to catch the killer.

SPOILERS APPROACHING. The cheap, vulgar, untalented and unattractive Joan Blondell plays the mayor's secretary. (She doesn't sound literate enough to file a letter, much less type one.) Blondell and Douglas squabble like a cat and a dog, so it's blatantly obvious they're going to end up together.

At this movie's lowest point, Melvyn Douglas decides to draw out the killer by dressing up as a woman. You do NOT want to see Melvyn Douglas in drag! He's well over six foot, and he doesn't even shave off that annoying moustache. The similarly-'tashed William Powell was an actor very similar in type to Melvyn Douglas (but much more talented). When Powell disguised himself as a woman in 'Love Crazy', he had the integrity to shave off his moustache: a genuine sacrifice, as Powell needed it to grow in again for his next role. But Melvyn Douglas brings nothing whatever to his role in this movie, not even a razor. He plays his drag scenes with the same annoying smirk he used throughout the bulk of his career.

On the plus side, 'The Amazing Mr Williams' has several of those splendid supporting players who made Hollywood's movies of the '30s so delightful. Edward Brophy is brilliant here, touching and funny as a criminal who gets an unlikely furlough from his life sentence. The dyspeptic Donald MacBride is fine as a cop who gets mistaken for the killer, and is nearly lynched by a mob. Ruth Donnelly is splendid: as usual for her, but here she gets a chance to show her talents away from her usual orbit on the Warner Brothers backlot. Jimmy Conlin, Luis Alberni and the grinning Dave Willock are all fine in small roles. Barbara Pepper (whom I usually dislike) is good here too. The grossly unpleasant Maude Eburne gets some screen time; I always loathe her, and she gives the same performance in every film ... but some audiences enjoy Eburne's one-note performance very much, for reasons I can't fathom.

If you're familiar with Hollywood character actors of the 1930s, and the roles they tended to play, one glance at IMDb's cast list will tell you who the murderer is. That's the problem with 'The Amazing Mr Wiliams': everything is too obvious. I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.",Negative "I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.",Negative "This movie is an awesome non-stop laugh riot incorporating all the usual ingredients of a Dawid Dhawan comedy - bumbling heroes , buffoonish supporting characters , made-up dolls for heroines , nasty villains , wisecracks , rocking soundtrack + choreography and a little dose of action .

Amitabh Bachchan and Govinda both are in double roles of policemen and conmen . The heroine of Amitabh the cop is Ramya Krishnan and Raveena is opposite Govinda the cop . Heroines are mere rouge-smothered props as usual . The conmen have no heroines . Paresh Rawal carries his villainous act in DAUD forward (He played a similar Don in KHOOBSURAT too) . Asrani shines in a brief role . He does a retake on his famous ""Angrezon ke zamaane ke Jailer"" act in SHOLAY .

Govinda is impeccable as usual - as a wisecracking , good-humoured policeman Pyaare Mohan and as a conman Chhote Miyaan . He imitates Bihari style of Hindi speaking with hilarious results . Amitabh Bachchan , believe it or not , pales in comparison with him . But still AB is fine . Madhuri Dixit does a cameo as herself in the song ""Makhna"" . She dances like wind .

Viju Shah's music is awesome . Check out ""Kisi Disco Mein Jaayen"" , ""Makhna"" and the title track .

Do not go looking for any LOGIC since it is a comedy and the screenplay is of convenience completely . Just Enjoy Yourself .",Positive "Expecting to see another Nunsploitation movie with a mean Mother Superior abusing and torturing her charges, Flavia turned out to be MUCH more than I had anticipated.

It actually has a feminist storyline, though I don't think such a term existed in the era in which the movie is set. It certainly wasn't practiced. Women (and the Jews and the poor) are very downtrodden and locked into menial spots in society. Throughout the story, Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) witnesses the tyranny of her time until she just can't sit there any longer and actually does something about it, albeit with disastrous results.

The pre-credit sequence has Flavia as a young adolescent near a battlefield. She sees an injured ""evil"" Muslim soldier (one of the few still alive) and tries to assist him. Before she can, her hate-filled father beheads the soldier and waves his head in her face (great family dynamics, huh?). After this, her father forces her to join a convent where she witnesses even more injustice. Though scenes do involve violence, rape and nuns, I would consider this more of a historical drama than Nunsploitation.

Indeed, many of the ingredients for a trashy exploitation piece are there, but the acting, camera-work, storyline and music are too good to keep it down in that level. Most ""nun"" films I've seen usually have the basic premise of: A good girl somehow winds up in a convent, where the Mother Superior is a supreme bitch that likes to whip people and/or make their lives a living hell.

Flavia spends much of the first part of he movie passively questioning all of the atrocities happening around her. Much of her passivity is forgotten when she becomes acquainted with the strong-spirited (but slightly loony- she likes to pee outside like me, but it's a lot easier for guys) Sister Agatha. When a group of Muslims attack their abbey, Flavia and Agatha do not cower in fear like the other nuns. Their attackers actually function as their liberators (of the cruelty and near-slavery of the abbey). In fact, it is a Christian, not a Muslim invader, that impales dear Sister Agatha.

It is Agatha's death that sends Flavia on her violent crusade against those who have oppressed her... Her father treats her like dirt. Her Muslim lover deserts her at a very inopportune time. I don't want to give out too much of the rest of the story, but be prepared to be shocked, devastated and saddened at the conclusion. This is a great film, so don't be put off by its (undeserved) reputation as a trash epic. Plus, how on Earth could a movie featuring Florinda Bolkan and Claudio Cassinelli go wrong? I am not familiar with María Casares' other works, but Sister Agatha is a hell of a character.

I have read many great reviews of the Synapse (US) release, but I love my German X-Rated Kult DVD copy. It isn't anamorphic/16:9, but actually has a little more picture information on all of the edges than Synapse's release.

And there are also many great, wise or funny lines of dialogue (many from Sister Agatha)

""Why is God male? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit… They're all male!"" -Flavia

""These men are afraid- look at them, Sister- Afraid their power will be taken away from them!"" -Sr. Agatha (regarding Christians fleeing after the Muslims arrive)

""Woman, where are you going? The Moslems can do nothing to you that the Christians haven't done! Ha Ha Ha!"" -Sr. Agatha (to a group of fleeing Christian women)

""Lord bless these Moslems- For putting fear into these pompous Christians."" -Flavia

""Does it take the mere sight of a Moslem to make you $h!t your underclothing?"" -Sr. Agatha

Closing message: ""Flavia Gaetani, not yet a Muslim - no longer a Christian - was punished as a runaway nun. The idea for the film came from events which occurred during the Musalman invasions of Italy culminating in what even today is remembered as THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 800 AT OTRANTO""",Positive "The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to ""attract female audiences,"" when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it ""their own story."" Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.",Negative "the tortuous emotional impact is degrading, whether adult or adolescent the personal values shown in this movie belong in a bad psychodrama if anywhere at all. This movie has a plot, but it is all evil from start to end. This is no way for people to act and degrades both sexes all the way through the movie. teen killing - bad preteen sex - bad emotional battering - bad animal cruelty - bad psychological torture - bad parental neglect - bad the only merit if any is the excellent color shots of contrasting red, blond and green leaves a bad feeling for anyone that respects life and peace, what a bad mistake to make, or to watch... it is UGLY",Negative "I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.

Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...

Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?

'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.

'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10",Positive "This is film-making at it's simplest and it's best.

I had my doubts, because even though Freeman is great actor, sometimes he gets involved in bad projects; this is not one of those times.

It's a small story that runs just over an hour and fifteen, in a time when we are getting used to having movies become longer and longer, and not necessarily better, the director uses the short time to his advantage, because the characters are so well defined from the start (great portrayals by freeman and Vega by the way), that the little bit of background info on them seems real, Morgan is himself even though his name is not mentioned, he has been out of movies for a couple of years now because he was saturated by the business, and developed a fear to commit to a script, and is doing research for a character in a indie movie where he plays a store/supermarket manager. The story begins by him being drop of in a supermarket in a rough neighborhood, where he meets the cashier of the 10 items or less (Vega) and has to take a ride with her cause ""the production"" forgot to pick him up.

In many ways it's a road movie, Morgan provides the laughs, and quirks with his unbeatable smile and positive perspective on everything, showing off an accomplished actor who has trained his mind to be able to define everyone he sees into a character he could play, and Paz (by the way, what an extraordinary beautiful woman, even more gorgeous than Penelope Cruz) brings the vulnerability of a 25 years old separated woman who works harder than everyone else without getting any credit in a dead end job at a crappy supermarket.

It's a talkie, there is a lot of dialog, but the balance between light and fun and serious and sad is well sustained, the characters become so lovable right away that you spend the last 20 minutes begging for more screen time of this odd couple, but the shortness is in the nature of the story, so it was a good call from the director not to give in.",Positive "The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. ""Rivers and Tides"" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie!",Positive "The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.",Negative "Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.

Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this.",Positive "While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.",Negative "TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.

This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!

===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words ""Oh, Jeez"" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!",Positive "When you come across a gem of a movie like this, you realize why the '80s were the greatest decade to live thru. The rock music ruled, & so did movies...especially horror movies. Filmmakers knew how to entertain us, & ""Trick or Treat"" is evident to this. When rocker Sammi Curr, who was most likely written after W.A.S.P. singer Blackie Lawless, dies in a hotel fire, his #1 fan Eddie, is distraught. He goes to friend & local dj Nuke (Gene Simmons) for support. Nuke gives him a copy of the very last recording that Sammi made; this is the only copy available. It was given to the radio station to be played live Halloween night. When Eddie plays it, it somehow brings back Sammi. He helps Eddie with the bullies at school, but then goes out of control. It is definitely one great movie. The bad thing is, this movie is out of print. I paid $25.00 to finally get it off of eBay. You should too...$$ well spent!",Positive "Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack.

The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.",Negative "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...

Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.

The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.

This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction.",Negative "I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.

What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.

What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.

Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.

One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to.",Positive Good story. Good script. Good casting. Good acting. Good directing. Good art direction. Good photography. Good sound. Good editing. Good everything. Put it all together and you end up with good entertainment.

The shame of it is that there aren't nearly enough films of this caliber being made these days. We may count ourselves lucky that writers/directors like John Hughes are occasionally able to make their creative voices heard.

Whenever I notice that I'm watching a film for the third or fourth time and still find it thoroughly satisfying I have to conclude that something about that film is right.,Positive "Wow, could have been such a good movie,Starts of with Brittany Daniels tied up, Im thinking cool we are going to get a flash back, but nothing, movie starts anew with the kid filming. This movie probably would have been better if it wasn't for the acting. I mean the acting was mostly horrible.. Although with the lines the poor actors had to deal with i guess they did the best they could..Still it really ruin the movie for me.. The twins were the only ones that seem to have some acting skills.. The movie drags to long for the supposed shocking conclusion.. All in all I have seen worse low budget movies but considering this was hype with the 8 films to die for I was very disappointed.. By the way, were did some reviewers say there was gore and stuff. Did I see the same movie.. Well this is 4 out of the eight, and so far only one has been any good..",Negative "Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for ""meat"" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH",Negative "I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.

*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.

Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.

The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.

tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in ""power"" that annoy you.

If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against ""the man"", this movie is juvenile and boring.

You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.

All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.

If... only I could get my two hours back.",Negative "This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.",Negative "I rented this movie roughly 4-5 years ago and was instantly disappointed.

I wanted to see a b-movie slasher flick, but ended up with a fecal matter for my eyes. The acting was similar to watching grass dry. I've seen better acting in a softcore film...

The idea that a crazy killer comes out of nowhere baffled me. How was this a horror movie?

this movie's production value, was laughable at best. There were no scares. It seemed like a high school student got a new video camera for Christmas. The plot was all over the place, if existent. If you are bored looking for a bad horror movie to rent, skip this one. There are much better b-movies out there.",Negative "This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting.

Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.

I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.

My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: ""Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!""

I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks.

Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.

I should be ashamed for watching it.

I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.",Negative "This is a nice little movie with a nice story, that plays the most important role in the entire movie.

It's a quite intriguing dramatic story, with also romance present in it. The story is being told slowly but this works out all too well for its build up. The characters are nice and portrayed nicely by its actors. Normally I'm not a too big fan of the Asian acting style but the acting in this movie was simply good.

Of course the movie is quite different in its approach and style from other genre movies, produced in the west. In a way this movie is more advanced already with its approach than the western movies made during the same era.

I only wished the movie its visual style would had been a bit better. For a movie that is considered a kind of an art-house movie this movie is certainly lacking in some well looking sequences. This was obviously a quite cheap movie to make and it got made quite generically. Not that this is a bad thing, it just prevent this movie from truly distinct itself and raising itself above the genre.

But oh well, this movie is all about its well constructed story and characters that are in it. In that regard this movie most certainly does not disappoint.

8/10",Positive "This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!

While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).

Also, the tie-in with the photography/""You could be a model"" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.",Negative "A drifter looking for a job is mistaken for a hit man in a small Wyoming town, leading to all kinds of complications. Cage is perfectly cast as the unlucky schmuck hoping to make a quick buck and get out of town but finding he can't escape the title town. Hopper does what he does best, playing a psycho known as ""Lyle from Dallas,"" the real hit man. Walsh as a crooked sheriff and Boyle as a femme fatale round out the fine cast. The script by brothers John and Rick Dahl contains delicious twists and turns, and John's direction creates a terrific ""neo noir"" atmosphere. Witty and very entertaining, it sucks the viewer in from the start and never lets up.",Positive "It's nothing brilliant, groundbreaking or innovative, but 'Dog Days' is for some reason an extremely fascinating character study. It's like CRASH tripping on a bad dose of heroin, but not really. It's an Austrian film following the lives of several depressed, deranged and annoying people and their abusive relationships with each other. It's disturbing, yet very well-acted and it's interesting to watch the crazy little things these characters do. Certainly not for the weak-hearted, this highly pessimistic film offers no conclusion or revelation at the end, we just see the lives of these sordid individuals over the course of two days. Grade: B",Positive "I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those ""genius"" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right.",Positive "Set in the 70s, ""Seed"" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.

Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.

Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), ""Seed"" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations (""Alone in the Dark"" for one), ""Seed"" is just utterly horrendous.",Negative "My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A ""Sci Fi Thriller"". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.",Negative """In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first ""national"" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the ""Windy City"" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic.""

The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.

Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.

Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), ""Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard."" If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?

Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany.

The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.

The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101",Positive "THE BEAVER TRILOGY is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant films ever made. I was lucky enough to catch it, along with a Q&A session with director Trent Harris, at the NY Video Festival a few years back and then bought a copy off of Trent's website. This movie HAS to be seen to be believed! I sincerely recommend searching for Trent's name on the web and then buying the film from his site. He's an incredibly nice guy to boot. Don't get confused: The cameraman in the fictional sections of THE BEAVER TRILOGY is NOT Trent!

After having seen the TRILOGY a few times, I do have to admit that I could probably do without the Sean Penn version. It's like a try-out version for the Crispin Glover ""Orkly Kid"" section and is interesting more as a curiosity item if you're a Penn fan than it being a good video. Penn is pretty funny, though, and you can see the makings of a big star in this gritty B&W video.

This is probably also one of Crispin Glover's best roles and I would just love to see an updated documentary about the original Groovin' Gary. Once you see this film, you'll never get Gary's nervous laughter out of your head ever again.",Positive "Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.

Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple ""under the floor"" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.

Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's ""Deep Red""(my highest recommendation; superb film), ""Opera"", or even ""Tenebre"". They're stronger in every category.",Negative "This is a film that everyone should watch. Quite apart from raising hugely important points (while South Africa is on the road to recovery there are still many countries in similar situations now), it is superbly directed while Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best performance in his career so far. Kline also gives a good performance, although perhaps not as stunning as Washington's. John Thaw also puts in a good turn as the Chief of Police.

There are so many possible areas where a film on apartheid could fall down, but all of these have been avoided. It would be easy to simply portray white people as the bad guys and black people as the good guys, but Attenborough has not done this. Sure, there were some white characters who seemed inherently evil, such as the Captain at the Soweto uprising, but to add extra dimensions to all the characters would make the film unbearably long. Some people complain about the length of the film as it is, but I think it needs the whole two and a half hours to tell the whole story, for it really is an incredible one.

The best scene in the film is that of Steve Biko's funeral. When the whole crowd begins to sing the South African national anthem, it is probably one of, if not the most moving scenes I have seen.

If you haven't seen this film already: watch it. It may not be comfortable viewing, but it's certainly worth it.",Positive "The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.

Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.

After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.

Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.

Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.",Negative "I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.

What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: ""You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu"".",Negative "Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.

This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .

If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say ""if you can do any better ..."" i would say ""yes , i could"" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.

I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .",Negative "I sat through this at GenCon only because it was quiet and I could nap. What a waste of time. Beverly D'Angelo and William Katt? WTF? Were the lady who played Flo and Abe Vigoda busy or something?

Truly, a piece of unfunny garbage. The characters were stereotypical without meaning to (I think...) and wooden, most of them seemed like they were on autopilot. The so-called ""hilarious"" situations described in some of the other so-called reviews were so hackneyed, I weeped for the writers.

I'm confused as to how anyone can find this worth their time, seriously. I'm only giving it 3 out of 10 because in order to be a 2 or 1, it would need to be either five-hours long or feature more Kelly LeBrock.",Negative "What a great film it is. The notion of nations sending people fighting each other with giant robots is tacky. The ending is not just a fitting one, it's more inspirational.

But I am intrigued by the characters. It is a pity we never see the relationship of Achilles and Athena more developed beyond just a couple of kisses and Athena's fear for Achilles's safety. Their romance is very enjoyable.

",Positive "The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as ""pure energy,"" and then sending it back complete to a ""target area."" There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, ""Devil Doll"") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to.

During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist ""Lembach"" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself ""projected"" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a ""pork roast"" with the power to electrocute people.

With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well.

In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all.

Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.",Negative "One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...

1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.

2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.

3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.

4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.

5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).

6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.

7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.

8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.

9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.

10. Under the guise of ""re-establishing democracy"", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.

11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.

12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.

13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.

14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.

8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of ""media warfare"" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to ""The Battle of Algiers"".

Worth one viewing.",Positive "This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.",Negative "I was eager to see ""Mr. Fix It"" because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called ""Mr. Fix It"", where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.

Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that ""Crow"" movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.

My advice: watch at your own risk.",Negative "This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!",Positive "I'm sorry but I didn't like this doc very much. I can think of a million ways it could have been better. The people who made it obviously don't have much imagination. The interviews aren't very interesting and no real insight is offered. The footage isn't assembled in a very informative way, either. It's too bad because this is a movie that really deserves spellbinding special features. One thing I'll say is that Isabella Rosselini gets more beautiful the older she gets. All considered, this only gets a '4.'",Negative "As usual, Sean Connery does a great job. Lawrence Fishburn is good, but I have a hard time not seeing him as Ike Turner.",Positive "I'm sorry, but this is such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.

The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with ""its about time you got your nappy on"". Please.

And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear?

I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.

4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.",Negative "Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:

Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...

At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10...",Positive "Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling.",Positive "Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.

The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinemathèque would have known better.",Negative "Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.

With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.

The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life.",Positive "Final Justice has the great Joe Don Baker running around Texas, shooting people who shoot people. Then he's off to Malta where he shoots more people. He gets locked up many times for shooting people. Then he gets into a gunfight with the bad guy, who is dressed like a monk. There is a boat chase, and Joe Don winds up in jail again. Finally Joe Don, with the help from Elaine from ""Seinfeld"" kill the bad guy, blow up a boat or two and someone gets shot with a flare. All this and a catchy theme song, just like Mitchell!",Negative "Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, ""Wild Wild Sabrina"" where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important.",Positive "This is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.

The so called ""culture of death"" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.

A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.

Congratulations on the cast and director.

Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from me!",Positive "Going into this movie, I had heard good things about it. Coming out of it, I wasn't really amazed nor disappointed. Simon Pegg plays a rather childish character much like his other movies. There were a couple of laughs here and there-- nothing too funny. Probably my favorite parts of the movie is when he dances in the club scene. I totally gotta try that out next time I find myself in a club. A couple of stars here and there including: Megan Fox, Kirsten Dunst, that chick from X-Files, and Jeff Bridges. I found it quite amusing to see a cameo appearance of Thandie Newton in a scene. She of course being in a previous movie with Simon Pegg, Run Fatboy Run. I see it as a toss up, you'll either enjoy it to an extent or find it a little dull. I might add, Kirsten Dunst is adorable in this movie. :3",Positive "I have a high tolerance level for crap, so I was looking forward to this. It did not disappoint. Apparently based on Sheridan Le Fanu's classic Carmilla, it follows a father and daughter hunting a female vampire who, luckily, happens to be travelling with them. Then we have Santa Claus (or the General, as he likes to be called here) running over random zombies. Did I mention there was a zombie outbreak? The dead are returning to life but nobody seems too concerned. We have construction worker zombies, soldier zombies and even St.Trinian schoolgirl zombies. Apparently Santa Claus is looking for his daughter who has been turned into a vampire. Oh wait there are no vampires, the girl is in a lunatic asylum and Carmilla is her nurse, or is she? The zombies are back and Santa's mad. Lesbian sex, I like vampires and I like zombies but I especially like lesbian sex. Nothing like some simulated cunnilingus to get the juices flowing. When are we going to see vampires fight zombies? Is she a vampire or is she a lunatic? Or both? Is Carmilla a hot sexy lesbian vampire or a nurse? More cunnilingus, you can never have enough cunnilingus. Here come the St.Trinian zombies. Chainsaw time!! More lesbian sex then the zombies kill and eat the vampires. I guess the zombies won, or did they? Plot? Who needs a plot when you've got lesbian vampires and schoolgirl zombies? And cunnilingus?",Negative "I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.",Negative "This is so bad, so very very bad. The acting is the biggest joke in history. Don't even bother to see it, i did ff it after 20 min and it was just as disappointing in the end as in the beginning... I really don't understand peoples taste, I'm a horror movie fan and I'm not fastidious but I DO HAVE A LIMIT! Maybe it was a quarter of a star better then the beginning of The Hoast but that's it. So I recommend you don't waste the 15 minutes you'll be able to watch. I mean the acting is better done by monkeys. And the big brother with the parental role is just awful. Don't they pay characters in C-movies? No I must say it's not the first time I think a horror movie is bad but it's absolutely one in my down ten movies and it will be charing places with Portrait of a vampire, Cabin by the lake, The Hoast!",Negative "What?!?? Why are people saying this is ""mind blowing?"" Just face it the ending is on of the worst endings in the history of cinematography! 4 left and the whole world has ended! Not to mention the character 9 was a idiot the whole time he got everyone killed. 1 was right the whole time, if he sacrificed 9 then non of this would have happened. People giving there lives for a stupid cause and for what?... to make it rain? I admit the movie had it's parts, and the whole concept was fascinating. But a lot of it was clichés one after another. And did anybody else get this feeling that this is a lot like ""Lord of The Rings?"" Characters died for stupid reasons, there was almost no character development, and honestly ask yourself is it good to have only four guys left in the world; its pointless and stupid. It was one of the shortest movies I've ever seen, and thank god! How is robots turning against humans creative in any way! It's been done like a hundred times! This movie is really stupid, go see a movie that's worth watching like Star Trek, The Hangover, or Inglorious Basterds, those were good movies!",Negative "I saw this movie in 1969 when it was first released at the Cameo Theater on South Beach, now the famous Crowbar Night-club. It was the last year of the wild 60s and this movie really hit home. It's got everything; the generation gap, the sexual revolution, the quest for success, and the conflict between following one's family ""traditions"" to those of seeking ones own way through life.

It was a fast paced, highly enjoyable movie. Vegas was at it's hippiest peak, Sin City in all it's glory. Beautiful women, famous cameos, laughs, conflict, romance, and even a happy ending. A very enjoyable time over all.

The poster from this film rests on my bedroom wall. I look at it and I go back in time; a time of my youth and my times with my dad, a great time in my life.",Positive "What made me track this movie down was the viewing Vampyres, I thought I have to get the other movies this guy (Larroz) has made, I was sorry I tracked this down,it is a weak attempt at an occult/satanic type movie laden with sex and only sex(with ugly actors and actresses, this is an excuse for sleaze. The only redeeming factor was the setting and atmosphere, avoid this one, too much hype surrounds it, not worth the effort of finding it, this refers to the welcome to the grind house edition. I hope he has some other movies which lives up to Vampyres, Oh and the goat scene was very boring, I understand that this is what carries the hype.",Negative "What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing.",Positive "This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. ""The Celluloid Closet"" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed ""Wigstock: The Movie"". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.

There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.

I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.

3/10.",Negative "I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen",Negative "Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after ""The Night Strangler"". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding ""Night"", with understandably less success.

Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are ""Dark Shadows"" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires!

**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox",Negative "This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good.",Positive "**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**

If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.

Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.",Negative "You know all those letters to ""Father Christmas"" and ""Jesus"" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is ""Dead Letter Office"". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.

""Dead Letter Office"" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?

Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film ""Committed"" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.

Despite that, ""Dead Letter Office"" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.",Negative "Although a tear jerker it is definitely a ""feel good"" movie. All the actors were excellent and Will Smith as always, does the job and does it well. I could go on but pick any ten of the ""10"" ratings and they've said it as well and likely better than I could.

BUT, since I must include at least 10 lines to post a comment I will say that Rosario Dawson was largely unknown to me as a viewer. Her performance was most enjoyable and I look forward to seeing her perform in many films to come.

AND, this film demonstrates that Will Smith has nothing further to prove in terms of his ability as an actor.",Positive "Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and ""the cat"" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.",Negative "This is John Waters best film to date. The characters are obvious and symbolic, just as in his other films. So there are no surprises or character changes. I enjoyed the film because of the wittiness and pace of the story. It was good story-telling with honest people.",Positive "I watched this film in youth group, where my otherwise intuitive youth leader and his wife squeed over it. Then some adult couple at a church-related Christmas party misled themselves into giving a copy of this movie to every single family in attendance, and now my household is stuck with the film (though it thankfully still remains in its shrinkwrap). I cried bitter tears over these sad events, and here's why: First off: this film has good intentions, especially if you're a Christian like me. This movie is trying to show that you should put your faith in God and that it'll make your life better. Not so bad, right? Eh. It turns out a be a problem--a big one. This movie was made by a church, so of course every single issue has to be dealt with as tastefully for Christians as possible. It is all black-and-white, no gray areas. God's grace and will in this movie is a predictable thing, and it comes instantly to all those who do His bidding.

This is not the God I know. This is not the Christian life I am familiar with. The God I believe in is a powerful and trustworthy God, but He is not one that grants my every wish. I follow Him as best I can, though the going is often hard; yet the football team in this movie finds their humility and self-control a lot easier than anyone should EVER find it. I cannot relate to cardboard cutouts who flip from bad-side to good-side in the course of a few structured movie scenes. And when I DO follow His commandments as laid out in the Bible, I certainly don't find myself showered in blessing as these characters do. The largest of my immediate rewards is knowing that I have done the right thing; everything else comes with long, messy, arduous work.

But take the example this movie sets: Grant Taylor coaches the football team at Shiloh Christian school, which has had 6 losing seasons in a row. He may lose his job over it, and he and his wife are low on money as it is. They want a baby, but the doctor tells him he is sterile. Oh, and his car doesn't work. And the boys on his football team are disrespectful to their parents, whiny after their million losses, and bad at kicking field goals. This is sure one rundown community here.

But wait, Grant Taylor decides he's going to trust in God for everything! And he passes on his faith to his team. So far, so good. Not for long. As they begin to obey, blessing literally POUR in on them. Suddenly the students stop disrespecting their parents; the school has a big ""revival""; the team starts winning EVERY game; they even win the grand championship against the hardest team in the league! Coach Taylor's job is reassured; the school gets him a shiny new truck as a present (which, by the way, is the epitome of shallow, fair-weather employers); he gets a raise; his wife (get this) even gets pregnant from his sterile sperm! And that skinny kid manages to kick his first darn field goal right when it really matters!! Wowzers, woot, yay, praise the Lord, etcetera, etcetera!!! ...

Yipe. Just YIPE. Nobody in my church has ever experienced Christ in a such a cut-and-dry manner. Yes, there have been miracles aplenty in my family, as well as gifts and creature comforts, and I attribute them to God's grace and lovingkindness. But God isn't some faucet tap that you turn on and off by being good or bad! He is by and large a mystery; His gifts come unexpectedly, often when you think you don't need them but you really do. It's a long, hard slog to the road of fulfillment, and things NEVER turn out the way you thought they would.

This movie has good intentions. But because of its supreme shallowness and total escapism, it tanks tremendously to a 1/10. The bad acting and sports movie clichés seem to be mere pimples next to the leprous falsehoods that this movie inadvertently pushes.

To all you future churches planning to make a movie: don't be afraid to show REAL life, even you have to add some inconvenient truths into the mix. However much the baser populace is wowed by this cotton candy treat, nobody has learned anything substantial from it. Give us the meat, the bones, the REAL stuff! True life applies to everyone, not just Christians, and that's one aspect ""Facing the Giants"" didn't manage to grasp.",Negative "Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.

I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.",Negative "Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?

I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...

Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it ""losers in like."" I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.

Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?

What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.",Negative "Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found ""Ringmaster"" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer ""guests"" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value.",Positive "This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.

Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.

The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters.

I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though.

What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??",Negative "Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including ""A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes,"" ""Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo,"" and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying.",Positive "This really should deserve a ""O"" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.

It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all ""fun"" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in ""this is the worst thing I've ever seen."" And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.

Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.",Negative "Despite reading the ""initial comments"" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone!",Positive "Interesting story about a soldier in a war who misses out on saving the life of a young girl from the enemy and is haunted by this event, even though he did save many other captive children. The film flashes a head and this soldier is now a teacher in a high school that is managed mostly by policemen patrolling the hallways, bathrooms and even class rooms. In other words, the High School is a prison and most of the kids pay very little attention to their teachers or principal. Dolph Lundgren,(Sam Decker) plays the soldier/school teacher and decides he is going to quit teaching and go into another field. However, the principal asks him to have a Detention Class as his last duty as a teacher. It is at this point in the film when all Hell breaks loose and the story becomes a complete BOMB. Try to enjoy it, if you decided to View IT !",Negative "I imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.

It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, ""The Tenant of Wildfell Hall"", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets – bodily, mental, societal – her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.

The actors are superb – the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised.",Positive "For Anthony Mann the Western was 'legend'- and 'legend' makes the very best cinema! Mann's work was full of intensities and passions, visually dramatic, and the action always excitingly photographed...

Stewart, a docile actor with the ability of displaying anger, neurosis and cruelty, made with Anthony Mann, five remarkable Westerns: ""Winchester '73;"" "" Bend of the River;"" ""The Naked Spur;"" ""The Far Country;"" and ""The Man from Laramie.""

In ""Winchester '73,"" Stewart reveals his darker side... He offers all the reserves of anger, inner ambivalence, and emotional complexity in his nature that his audiences had, up till this time, failed to catch...

A carefully chosen cast increases the proceedings in fine style: Shelley Winters is at her saucy best; Dan Duryea perfect as the vicious, sneering psychopathic villain; John McIntire great as the unscrupulous character; Charles Drake so good as the man who attempts to face his tormentor; and a very young Rock Hudson, attempts the role of an Indian Chief...

""Winchester '73"" is the story of a perfectly crafted and highly prized, rifle in the Dodge City Kansas of 1876... Stewart and his estranged brother, who bears another name (Stephen McNally), compete fiercely for possession of it, and though Stewart wins, McNally steals it and sets off cross-country with Stewart in pursuit... What gives the pursuit an element of the demonic, is Stewart's determination to revenge his father's death at the hands of that same renegade brother—a revenge fed by long-standing fratricidal hatred...

Photographed in gorgeous Black & White, the film comes on as powerful and arresting, acted with deep feeling and intense concentration, not only by Stewart but by all the supporting characters...

Look fast for a promising newcomer, Tony Curtis, the soldier who finds the rifle after the Indian attack...",Positive "Spoilers ahead if you want to call them that...

I would almost recommend this film just so people can truly see a 1/10. Where to begin, we'll start from the top...

THE STORY: Don't believe the premise - the movie has nothing to do with abandoned cars, and people finially understanding what the mysterious happenings are. It's a draub, basic, go to cabin movie with no intensity or ""effort"".

THE SCREENPLAY: I usually give credit to indie screenwriters, it's hard work when you are starting out...but this is crap. The story is flat - it leaves you emotionless the entire movie. The dialogue is extremely weak and predictable boasting lines of ""Woah, you totally freaked me out"" and ""I was wondering if you'd uh...if you'd like to..uh, would you come to the cabin with me?"". It makes me want to rip out all my hair, one strand at a time and feed it to myself.

THE CHARACTERS: HOLY CRAP!!!! Some have described the characters as flat, I want to take it one step further and say that they actually have a reverse character arch.. They actually start working on a parallel universe and almost start acting backwards...

THE ACTORS: Worse than the characters are the actors. They take already poor written characters and add in terrible high school drama acting. The ""Woah you totally freaked me out"" was said so monotone and slow - like it was dumbed down. I could complain for hours on the actors alone.

TECHNICAL: LIGHTING: An eight year old would be disappointed with lighting on this movie. Too shadowy in areas, too bleached in others. The director shouldn't use light as an emotion until he learns how to light a basic scene properly. Baby Steps! SOUND: How many sound guys does it take to make a really shotty sounding movie? 9. With that many sound guys this should sound amazing but quite the opposite has occured. There is one scene in particular that really sticks out, these guys are driving in a car and the sound of the car changes with every camera angle....WEAK! CAMERA: Learn to use it.

Anyway, I'm running out of complaining space.....rent it - I dare you...Rent it and learn from it...give it a 1 rating..it deserves it.

Signing off... Amanda Christmas",Negative "I am a member of a canoeing club and I can tell you the truth that Deliverance is synonomous with the peacefulness and tranquility of the experience. As we put our boats into the water, banjoes echo in the back of the conscious mind. This movie is timeless because it waxes philosophical of human's place in nature and technology's effect upon man's relationship with nature. We see it in the bow fishing. We see it in the home made tent. There is also city man's disdain and feeling of superiority to the rural woodsman ""cracker"". The fact that the Banker from Atlanta (Ned Beatty) has ""bad teeth"" is meant to put him on the same level with the woodsmen who also have bad teeth. Ultimately, the struggle of life and death supersedes ""civilized man's"" suppositives about ""The Law"". This canoe trip ends too soon for the viewer, but alas Not Soon Enough for the characters.",Positive "First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers?

Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.

Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).

Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers.",Positive "What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. ""Jeopardy"" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?",Positive "Recap: Doctor Markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy, knowledge that might unbalance the world. He keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the Soviet Union. KGB on the other side desperately wants the new technology. So, they sets a scheme in motion. During a rescue attempt to free Markov, KGB steps in, takes Markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in Sweden, and working for the UN. As a backup, KGB kidnaps Markov's estranged daughter. CIA now send their best agents, a team of (Swedish?) Ninjas to thwart KGB and rescue Markov and his daughter.

Comments: A cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. The movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. First off is that it is very dark, probably to conceal locations and bad effects, that some scenes are hard to comprehend. You can't see what is happening. The second thing that it is lacking is martial arts, despite being a ninja-movie. Sure there are some, of quite poor quality, but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. The automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. And the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while Soviet guards die like flies.

What does it have that speaks for it then? The idea and ambition foremost. Some actually, and especially for a Swedish movie, decent action-scenes albeit not of martial arts. Some nice slow-motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. And some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. Mostly all parts that you look for in a B-movie.

Because it definitely is a B-movie, no mistake could be made there. But if you expect it, and watch it like a B-movie, it is entertaining. But don't forget, it is not only a B-movie it is set in the eighties. Some girls, for example, besides wearing... lets say ""interesting"" clothes, have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup.

In all, see for the cult status and the ambition. Enjoy it, and then forget it.

4/10",Negative "This was a wonderful film. How these women tried to save their husbands. I thought that the performances of the actors were great. I had to think about the film for a very long time. I think that every student should see this film so that they can think about war, relationships, friendship and love. I liked the film because it told and showed me how strong love can be. I wish I could be so strong as a woman. I really liked it because it told me something about relationships and that is what I like to see in a movie. I think you can compare the film with Der Untergang, The pianist. If you put these three films together, you have a great sight of what happened during the war. We should remember something like the war forever.",Positive "This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.

Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.

There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.",Negative "In all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing.",Negative "I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do ""Carlitos Way"" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel ""Carlito's Way"" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 out of 10.",Negative "Blue monkey is actually mentioned in the film but not in any way that makes any possible sense. At one point,some kids are wandering thru the deeper levels, exploring.

They begin to discuss what they'll find down there and one of them (a girl) says she bets they'll find a blue monkey.

Yes, thats it. Totally inconsequential to the story, the only sad connection to the title, and no idea why she would suppose she'd find a blue monkey in a hospital's basement.

I'm embarrassed for having remembered it but somebody had to remember I suppose!",Negative "Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the ""unrated"" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.",Negative "I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!",Negative "While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.",Negative "I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.

Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.

I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a ""Well, I never..."" out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.

Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.

Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.",Positive "Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.

The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!

The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?

The acting is superb.

The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.

I have had more fun doing the laundry.",Negative "A masterful treatment of James Caine's ""The Postman Always Rings Twice"" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe"" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French ""Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended.",Positive "This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent.",Negative "A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of

the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but ""hilarious""? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10",Negative "Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.

I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).

Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.

I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.",Negative "Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow:

Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.

Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!

I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well.",Positive "Wonderful family drama/comedy starring MacClaine and Garr that entertains and warms the heart every time I see it. Strongly recommended for all ages from 9 year olds to grannies. Lovely period piece capturing 1962. The story encompasses the struggling Garr, her two children and Aunt Zena (MacClaine) trying to make ends meet without a man as head of the household. The ""family"" heads west to take the inheritance of a long forgotten relative that has left Garr a run down, ramshackle road side cafe right out of the late 1940's. The tenacious Garr, as the sweet but determined mom, gets the whole family into the restoration and opening of the cafe. But wait......Aunt Zena is an old circus performer with card tricks, magic powders and a jesters sense of humor......she loves to get the kids and her into silly and sometimes dangerous games.....What happens next is a delightful combination of ""Miracle at Lords"" thrown together with the Cuban missile crises (with authentic TV news from the real event) and a ""ghost"" prank that gets totally out of hand. This film entertains, philosophizes, questions religiosity and gives an unnerving glimpse of the frightening scare of October 1962's Cuban missile crises. In the end one is left with the wonder of faith, family and rediscovered love. Oh, and the music from the era of the early 60's is just great!

Recommend STRONGLY as a FEEL GOOD FILM 10 out 10",Positive "Back in the day if Marion Davies had had her druthers and didn't just listen to William Randolph Hearst, she'd have done more films like Show People and been a lot happier. In fact when you see her get her first big break in two reel comedy, she'd have loved to have done that in her career instead of such epics like When Knighthood Was In Flower and Janice Meredith.

What you're seeing by all accounts in Show People is the real Davies, a gifted comedienne, a superb mimic and a generous good hearted person. She could really identify with the character of Peggy Pepper aka Patricia Prepoire, she put up with her share of pretense in her Hollywood stardom.

If the plot of Show People was set in the legitimate stage you would call it a backstage story. I guess it being one of the first movies about the movies you could call it a behind the camera story. Marion is eager young hopeful who arrives in Hollywood like so many others, looking for that big break. She wants to drama, but her introduction to the movies is as the foil for the burlesque comics. She gets her share of pie and seltzer in the face, but learns her trade. And also wins the heart of young comic actor William Haines.

She does get her first big break, but it doesn't come for Haines as well and Marion does get to do legitimate drama with actor Paul Ralli, playing Andre Telfair, a pretend no account Count of Avignon. Somebody here was taking a shot at actor Lou Tellegen, lover and husband of Sarah Bernhardt and Geraldine Farrar and others and to hear tell of it, one of the most despised people in cinema.

Show People was one of the first films to have the unbilled cameo appearances of stars as themselves. You will get to see folks like Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Mae Murray, John Gilbert, Eleanor Boardman etc., just being themselves in and around the film colony. That in itself makes Show People a film worth saving.

Show People also made good use of standard Tin Pan Alley songs like, Ain't We Got Fun, I'm Sitting On Top Of The World, You'd Be Surprised, California, Here I Come. As the film came out on the cusp of sound being introduced, a song called Crossroads was introduced in it. It's not a bad number, but no credit is given to the boy and girl singing it in the soundtrack. I guess since they're not seen, it was felt no billing was necessary. Still I'd like to know and I'm sure you would to if you are fortunate enough to see Show People.

It's easy to see why Marion Davies liked this film so much and considered it a personal favorite. She looks so at home in this film and her real life lack of pretense shines through in her performance which makes it a real treat for the audience.",Positive "While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.",Positive "Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.

More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.

Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.

Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny.",Positive BASEketball is awesome! It's hilarious and so damned funny that you will wet your pants laughing. I have seen it so many times I have stopped counting. But everytime it gets funnier.

Trust me on this one...BASEketball is a surefire hit and I loved it and will continue to love it. I hope one day there will be a special edition DVD brought out!!!

Ten Thumbs Up!!!,Positive "When you read the summary of this film, you might come to think that this is something of an odd film and in some ways it is, for the primary character of this film, Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) is haunted by visions and hallucinations. The visions Gerard see are all (more or less) subtle hints to what will happen to him as the story continues and it is great fun for the viewer to try and figure out the symbolism used in the film. Despite the use of symbolism and a couple of hints to the ending of the film, the film maintains a very high level of excitement throughout and does not get boring for one minute. This is mostly due to the great performances of Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk (Christine) and the great direction of the whole by Paul Verhoeven. His directing style is clearly visible and one can say, looking at it from different angles, that 'De Vierde Man' is a typical Verhoeven film. It will not only seem typical for people familiar with his American films because of the nudity and the graphic violent scenes, but it will also seem typical for people familiar with his Dutch films, because of the same things and his talent to tell a great story. When people watch Verhoevens American films, short sighted people might say, he has no talent in telling a good story and only focuses on blood and sex. That is what some people think, whereas I think that he is a very talented director who tries to convey a deeper message in each with each film. Although not a good film, Hollow Man (his last American film) is an example that Verhoeven can do more than science fiction splatter movies and maybe companies should trust him more and offer him more various films to helm. He needs that. Just watch his Dutch films. Not only do they show that he needs a certain amount of freedom, but they also show that he has remarkable talent. 'De Vierde Man' brought him one step closer to Hollywood and is certainly one of his best.

8 out of 10",Positive "I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...

1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.

2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.

3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.

4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his ""How's it going', Buddy Boy?"" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since ""THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!"" from CREEPSHOW 2.

5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.

6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.

7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.

And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.

4/10",Negative "This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.

Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.

The ""final boss"" of the film is a twisted and perverse adaptation of the original character and barely gets any development to show just why he is the way he is. The filmmakers obviously felt that all they really needed to do was create a bad ass character who could do anything they wanted and slapped on the name of a popular character.

Very disappointing...",Negative """In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as ""Mortal Kombat."" So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the ""Poison Clan"" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or ""venoms"" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from.""",Positive "I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .",Negative "I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.",Negative "The peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.

The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.

This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies.",Negative "This is one of the best movies. It is one of my favorites. A movie with good acting. The story is very sensitive and touching. Good camera work also.

The names of the actresses and actors are not at the top of the American Star list. However, they give equal or better performances than the top of the list.

It is such a pleasure to see a movie about true love, romance, friendship without having to endure watching someone having to kick-box their way to save the world.

If you don't like this movie then you have no heart or feelings. Then go watch a sports movie. There is no killing or horror here. See the movie. It is a must. TH",Positive "****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet ""Hobgoblins"" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as ""The Creeping Terror,"" ""The Mighty Gorga"" and ""Manos"" are uniformly bad from start to finish. ""Hobgoblins"" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept ""Club Scum"" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch ""Hobgoblins"" and wonder no longer.",Negative "Though I like E.E. ""Doc"" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.

Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)

Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.

P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well.",Positive "When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically ""Where have you been all my life?"" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.",Positive "Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.

Who greenlit this mess?

I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.

Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.",Negative "Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like ""Saturday Night Fever"", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them.",Positive Good action and interesting plot. Having seen the original I must say it was an interesting improvement and showed more of the movie. Good cast .. meaningful acting.. although it would nice to see some more expansion in the action scenes rather than the background story. Fun movie to watch and keeps you alert all the time 7/10 is a right vote I think!,Positive "Not to be confused with the Madonna film ""The Next Best Thing"", ""The Last Big Thing"" is a silly, campy, off-the-wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called ""The Next Big Thing"" which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. This low budget indie makes ""Chuck and Buck"" look like a masterpiece. Fraught with lousy acting, poor sets and costuming, etc., ""...Thing"" has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. Pass on this one.",Negative "The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise.",Negative "There is an episode of The Simpsons which has a joke news report referring to an army training base as a ""Killbot Factory"". Here the comment is simply part of a throwaway joke, but what Patricia Foulkrod's documentary does is show us, scarily, that it is not that far from the truth. After World War Two the US Army decided to tackle a problem they faced throughout the war; that many soldiers got into battle and found themselves totally unable to kill another human being unless it was a matter of 'me or them'. Since then the training process of the US army has been to remove all moral scruples and turn recruits into killing machines who don't think of combatants as people. To develop in them a most unnatural state: ""The sustainable urge to kill"".

First off, this isn't an antiwar movie as such. Whilst it certainly paints war in a very bad light, Foulkrod focuses rather on an aspect that doesn't get as much media attention as, say, the debate over the legality of a war or it's physical successes or failures; the affect the process of turning a man into a soldier has on that person as a human being. It's the paradox that to train someone to be a soldier to defend society makes them totally unsuitable to live as part of that society themselves, and whilst most of the examples and interviewees are from the current Middle East conflict Foulkrod makes the links to past conflicts, especially Vietnam, painfully clear. This isn't about any particular war, it's about the problems caused by war in general.

Structurally the film seems to be split into three sections; how recruits are drawn into the army and the training they receive, how they are treated once they are in combat, and what happens once they leave the army. Once this point is reached you realise that the main target of this film is actually the policies that are inherent in the armed forced, policies that are put into place to make soldiers into an affective combat force but removing all humanity from the individuals. Those interviewed tell the camera how the recruiting process seems so clean and simple, how word like ""democracy"" and ""freedom"" are banded around, but once the training begins they become ""enemy"" and ""kill"" and ""destroy"". How once in action soldiers don't care what they are ordered to do, as they are ingrained with the idea that as soon as they carry out an order, whatever it may be, they are one step closer to going home. They have no political or social ideals to fight for but fight and kill as that's what they've been trained to do.

But The Ground Truth's main goal is to highlight the way the US Army discards those who have fought for their country once they return home. There is no real rehabilitation given to soldiers returning, and many are forced to go home unable to cope with what they have seen and done, and most policies in place seem to be to make sure the army has no legal responsibility whatsoever for psychological affects their soldiers pick up. This is the final indignity, that once they are used they are cast away.

If there is a flaw in the film it is that Foulkrod doesn't attempt to show another side to the argument. You would get the impression that every single soldier who ever went to war would come back with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. It would have been interesting to see those of a… less liberal upbringing give their opinions of how the army handles training and policies. There is never a chance for the other side of the argument to make itself known.

But other than that this is an expertly crafted documentary, and Foulkrod's use of stock footage and music is perfectly utilised to get across a side of war that too often get s passed by when discussing the fallout of war.",Positive "Several story lines are interwoven here around different women characters. The shoes they wear serve as an indication of their troubled lives. All are transformed at the end of the movie. Adela (Antonia San Juan) leads a brothel; Her daughter Anita (Monica Cervera) is retarded and has a restricted life. Leire (Najwa Nimri) is a shoe designer with problems and loses her boyfriend; Maricarmen (Vicky Peña) has lost her husband and now raises the children from his deceased former wife. Isabel (Ángela Molina) is a bored rich lady.

Other characters are used to connect the five main women characters. In storytelling not everything is given away in the beginning: Some connections are established surprisingly late in the movie and that adds to the experience. The shoe-theme is driven to extremes: For example when Leire as a shoe-designer and working in a shoe store where she steals her shoes faints, she breaks one of her heels.

In editing small connections are made between the scenes. A telephone rings, a cigarette is lit, a song, etc. are used to make the connection and fast cuts. Frequent change of storyline keeps it from being boring or reaching TV-levels. It is strongly music-driven to set tone and atmosphere. The cities of Madrid and Lisbon serve as the backdrop for the stories, and shots of those cities are used to extend the story beyond the characters. One of the more moving shots is when Anita, who makes the same walk every day, widens her walk and restricted life from the relative calm of her street to the busy main road: How the restriction of space is visually translated is well done. As with most Spanish movies a lot of storytelling is done visually, using the soap-like stories as the simple backdrop. There is a poetic ending that is somewhat romantic and sentimental but is still beautiful.

As Ramón Salazar is too much in love with his own material it is overlong. Some scenes are kitsch and on the soap level, including the acting (Adela's love life, Isabel's doctor). The shoe-theme is exaggerated and is a weak metaphor.

This is often compared to Magnolia because the structure is the same. But they are different. Magnolia is more technically competent, but somewhat mechanical. This has more the ability to translate emotion and atmosphere visually. After seeing this, you are inclined to immediately move to the new movie-city: Madrid.",Positive "After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.",Negative "9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.

The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.

Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry ""Dr. Giggles"" Drake) comes her way.

If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do.",Positive "I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but ""Look at how creepy this guy is."" And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.",Negative "I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.

This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby",Negative "This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titles—you are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.

Spoilers technically follow:

Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.

Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad.",Negative "If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!!",Negative "Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.

http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/",Negative "The only good thing about this movie was the shot of Goldie Hawn standing in her little french cut bikini panties and struggling to keep a dozen other depraved women from removing her skimpy little cotton top while she giggled and cooed. Ooooof! Her loins rival those of Nina Hartley. This movie came out when I was fourteen and that shot nearly killed me. I'd forgotten about it all tucked away in the naughty Roladex of my mind until seeing it the other day on TV, where they actually blurred her midsection in that scene, good grief, reminding me what a smokin' hottie of a woman Goldie Hawn was in the '80s. Kurt Russell must have had a fun life.",Negative "This is a low-budget ""Scream"" style movie. ""Maddy"" is a new worker at a conspicuously-unnamed office, where she meets and starts a relationship with her co-worker ""Chris"". During a hot tub-party, Chris and his friends convince Maddy they belong to a ""Murder Club"" where everyone has killed someone for kicks. When Maddy loses it and kills someone for real, hijinks ensue.

The film looks good, and there are the requisites for this genre and budget level (nudity, gore, maybe a few cameos from slightly bigger stars than the cast), but, after the credits roll, you'll ask yourself why you spent 80 minutes of your life watching it.",Negative "Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers.

The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.

The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.

The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.

Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved.",Negative "This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.

I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.

So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.

I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.",Negative "The secret is...this movie blows. Sorry, but it just did.

****SPOILER****

In this bad riff on I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM, Beth, played admirably by Dorie Barton, joins several friends on a Spring Break trip. The group rents a fancy house and tries to enjoy a fun vacation. Then, the deaths begin. First one then another then another of the friends is murdered, leading to a sad and trite climax with predictable results.

One note, Dorie Barton is the poor man's Reese Witherspoon–she looks like Reese, acts like Reese and could pass for Reese in a police lineup. Maybe that's how they cast her? Anyhoo, decent cinematography and fair acting could not quite make up for bad dialog and terrible writing.",Negative "I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.

But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.

It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...",Negative "Passionate, dramatic, riveting as Flamenco itself, the film is simply amazing. It is set on the immortal Bizet's music. The original music is written and performed by one of the greatest classical guitarists, leading proponent of the Modern Flamenco style, Paco de Lucia who plays a musician with the same name. Legendary Flamenco dancer and choreographer Antonio Gades co/wrote the script and choreographed this fabulous version of the celebrated Georges Bizet/Prosper Mérimée novella/opera. He plays a main character Antonio, the famous dancer/choreographer who works on retelling the story of Carmen in the Flamenco style that combines dances with singing and rhythmic hand clapping and has a highly charged level of dynamics that appeals enormously to the viewers.

Brilliant and graceful Cristina Hoyos whose technical excellence matches the elegant artistry of her dancing shines in the supporting role. Hoyos had been the first dancer in Gades' company for twenty years (1968-1988) and she was the protagonist of three films that Carlos Saura made of Gades' three great shows: ""Bodas de Sangre"" (1978), ""Carmen"" (1983) and ""El Amor Brujo"" (1985). Gorgeous Laura del Sol is a young dancer named Carmen in whom Antony sees from the first sight another Carmen, who was immortalized by two Frenchmen, the writer Prosper Mérimée in his most famous novella written in 1846 that had inspired George Bizet's world famous Opéra-Comique version from 1875.

As in the opera and in the novella, Carmen in Saura's film is desirable and deadly, the ultimate femme fatale who has to be free above anything else. She could not tolerate the possessive love of any man and would prefer death to submission. There some 50 movie adaptations of the story and the opera to the screen, and as different as they are, they all have in common the only possible tragic end. Saura/Gades' film is unique as the most sensual of all and truly Spanish. I fell in love with it from the first time I saw it over twenty years ago and it is as special and beautiful today as it was back then. Highly recommended.",Positive "Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.",Positive "Randall ""Memphis"" Raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the ""game"" when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for British crime boss Raymond Calitri. The job involves ""lifting"" 50 cars in 24 hours or Calitri will enact his punishment. So Raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. But the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. It would seem a near impossible job to complete.

It's got quite a cast has Gone In 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo, Vinnie Jones, Giovanni Ribisi, Christopher Ecclestone, Scott Caan & Timothy Olyphant. All of whom deserve better. Enough acting horsepower there to propel a Porsche 998 Turbo. Trouble is, is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park, mucho characters, not enough zest. From the off we are in no doubt that this is a Bruckheimer/Simpson production, bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese, scattergun editing, and directed with sledgehammer subtly by Dominic Sena. It's essentially a big budget remake of H.B. Halicki's 1974 indie movie of the same name, with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. Potential that sadly is never realised. There's one or two high impact moments, daft for sure, but enjoyable none the less. But if you pardon the pun, the film never gets out of first gear, it's more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {Scott Rosenberg} work.

Car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye}, as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out Ecclestone's carpenter grief moment}. But no, it's really rather poor all told. 4/10",Negative "The information contained in this movie is somewhat familiar to many who have been paying attention to the news lately. The Walter Reed scandals show a small part of the fact that we are not doing a good job taking care of our injured heroes when they return.

What this movie further shows is a truth common to all wars. The psychological trauma that soldiers suffer while engaging in war and the difficulty they have when returning to civilian life. They are not just changed or affected, they are different people and most do not know how to deal with that as they do not know themselves.

Finally, this film shows what the military does to our young men in women in getting them ready for war and the policies and practices that they have to follow in prosecuting war that leads to all the psychological trauma.

We have over 3000 dead soldiers in the four years of this invasion; but we have many tens of thousands that will suffer lifelong physical and psychological trauma because of this war. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it behooves you to know the cost of war to decide if we should be in that business. This film illustrates the costs to the men and women perfectly.",Positive "This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'.",Negative "Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers – not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version – with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton – stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.

The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane – ""poor, plain and little"" – grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy ""paving hell with energy""; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him – but ""pervious, through a chink or two"". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.

It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors – Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.

Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, ""Wide Sargasso Sea"", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out – you'll never see the 'hero' of ""Jane Eyre"" in quite the same way again.",Positive "This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring.

In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...

I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy ""Hasty Hare""! :-)",Positive "I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical ""Chekovian"" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the ""Blue Danube"" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking ""springtime"" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of ""Flowers of Shanghai"", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example ""In the Mood for Love"" or ""Flowers of Shanghai"", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.

",Negative "I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!",Positive "Recap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.

Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.

In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.

The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.

When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.

7/10",Positive "This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.

The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.

Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.",Negative "Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in ""The Waystation"", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.

THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.

The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.

As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.",Negative "The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.",Negative "As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.

Remember the ""strings"" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing ""Suspicious Minds"". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.

As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.

Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places.",Positive """Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead,"" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This said-to-be follow-up to ""The Thirteenth Guest"" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.

*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark",Negative "In Cinema Retro magazine #2,it is revealed that Mark Lester's voice was actually dubbed by a 20 year old female, Kathe Green. Although Leste was considered perfect for the title role, director Carol Reed was not at all pleased with his singing abilities. The secret was revealed by on a 2004 UK documentary titled ""Oliver! After They Were Famous"". Greene was paid 400 pounds for her work and she had to agree to keep her participation secret, as did Mark Lester. They kept their word and only revealed this fact as part of the TV show decades after release of the film. For the record, Mark Lester retired from acting and is a practicing osteopath in England.",Positive "Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos.",Negative "Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it.",Positive "The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected.",Positive "As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the ""charming"" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done.",Positive "I had fun watching this movie, mainly due to Simon Pegg, who has quickly become a solid box office draw for comedy films.

He is hired from his dead end London publishing job by big shot NYC media mogul Jeff Bridges, as a writer, for one of his celebrity rags.

After paying his dues, he makes it into the higher echelons of celebrity writing hackdom (the ""seventh room""), where he gets to be a minor celebrity himself. The storyline is very funny, and Gillian Anderson puts in an impressive supporting role as a cutthroat publicity agent.

Along the way to success, he finds the true meaning of love, etc.

The formulaic plot aside, the movie was very funny, mainly due to Simon Pegg, Jeff Bridges, and Gillian Anderson. Kirsten Dunst was good as the love interest. The rest of the supporting cast did its job well.

This was a good comedy & well worth checking out at the theaters.",Positive "The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.

First time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.

Making her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.

As positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.

The supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10.



",Positive "A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller.",Positive "The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: ""I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours."" I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...",Negative "Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.

Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.

I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work.",Positive "This film is about a man who has been too caught up with the accepted convention of success, trying to be ever upwardly mobile, working hard so that he could be proud of owning his own home. He assumes this is all there is to life until he accidentally takes up dancing, all because he wanted to get a closer look of a beautiful girl that he sees by the dance studio everyday while riding the subway on his way home.

His was infatuated with her at first, going to the dance class just to idolize her, but he eventually lets himself go and gets himself into the dancing. It eventually becomes apparent to him that there is more to life than working yourself to death. There is a set of oddball characters also learning in the studio, giving the film a lot of laughs and some sense of bonding between the dejected.

There is also revelations of various characters, including the girl he initially admired, giving some depth to them by showing their blemished past and their struggle to overcome it.

The dancing was also engaging, with the big competition at the end, but it is not the usual story where our underdog come out at the top by winning it. Instead, there are downfalls, revelations and redemption.

All these makes it a moving and fun film to watch.",Positive "It's a refreshing breath of air when a movie actually gives you a story line with a beginning, a middle, and a end, a nice, clever mystery, with an appealing heroine for all ages, who wins us over with her wit and charm. Andrew Fleming's film is indeed a modern marvel, a comeback to the good old reliable storytelling that was the norm in Hollywood. He puts away the over-reliance on special effects that now passes for entertainment and gives us a terrific film, with a very capable young actress, and a talented supporting cast.

The film is based on the old books, but it has been given updated enough to put in this century; however, the props might be different, the heart still is a good mystery, and there is clever one here, one that ties the traditions of the old and the nuances of contemporary youth. Emma Roberts is an old fashioned girl, who believes in good behavior and respect for others; details that are sorely missing from today's films. She is still good enough to get boys' attentions but she also knows how present poise and self respect. She earns her medals by working hard and is not afraid to show a little guile when it is needed to achieve her goals.

While taking a vacation to California, our heroine is drawn into the mystery of a Hollywood actress who was the victim of foul play; suddenly she is ""visited"" by her ghost and this sets off a series of events that might solve the mystery or result in something dreadful for herself. What makes the movie quite entertaining is the little details, as she discovers that her customary world is nothing compared to the California scene, and this is well presented, without resorting to unnecessary vulgar language or anything graphic or overtly sexual. Eventually, the director has enough control to make it all very palatable to all types of audiences, from the young ones to the adults in the audience. It is a movie that deserves to be seen, appreciated, and enjoyed, a film that is rare and delicate, and it's not afraid to be classified as fun! Five Stars",Positive "A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, ""Toast of New Orleans"", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the ""real people"" in the audiences.",Negative "No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.

It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.

Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.",Negative "A fine western, following the fate of those who possess the prize winning gun, a Winchester '73. It has a great cast who give superb cliche characterisations with help from the usual effective story telling direction from Mann.",Positive "my friend bought the movie for 5€ (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.",Negative "Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. ""Brady"". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the ""A"" girl has one heck of great butt!",Negative "Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of.

Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.

But that does not diminish its genius.

Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.

This is not some watered-down ""Nutty Professor"" comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.

One of the best comedies I've ever seen.",Positive "A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.

The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.

I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew.",Positive "Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill ""demons"". He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.

The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now.",Positive "When I first saw ""A Cry in the Dark"", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.",Positive "I thought watching employment videos on corporate compliance was tedious. This movie went nowhere fast. What could have been a somewhat cheesy half hour twilight zone episode turned into a seemingly endless waste of film on people parking their cars, a picture of some dude's swimming pool (he really needs to answer his phone by the way) a dot matrix printer doing its job, and Heuy and Louey sitting in a yellow lighted control room repeating ""T minus 10 and counting"" as if something exciting is going to happen. It doesn't so don't get your hopes up. The best thing about this movie is to see James Best and Gerald McC, in something other than there famous TV personalities, and that is stretching to find anything good. And do NOT get me started on the music which was totally composed of a Tympani, some large marine mammals, and microphone feedback. This movie is as close as I have given a one yet, but it gets the 2 because I actually was able to finish this insomnia cure, and didn't have to leave in the middle. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.",Negative "There have been very few films I have not been able to sit through. I made it through Battle Field Earth no problem. But this, This is one of the single worst films EVER to be made. I understand Whoopi Goldberg tried to get of acting in it. I do not blame her. I would feel ashamed to have this on a resume. I belive it is a rare occasion when almost every gag in a film falls flat on it's face. Well it happens here. Not to mention the SFX, look for the dino with the control cables hanging out of it rear end!!!!!! Halfway through the film I was still looking for a plot. I never found one. Save yourself the trouble of renting this and save 90 minutes of your life.",Negative "Late one night on a desolate road, in an empty saloon Martin Sheen spins a yarn for Robert Carradine of Hopalong Cassidy and friends tracking a group of murderous cattle rustlers, who've killed a few men and kidnapped Cassidy's girl.

Writer/director Christopher Coppola May have incurred the wrath of William Boyd purists by daring to make a modern low budget film featuring their beloved Hoppy, but I'm glad he did it! No character should be so tied to an an actor that no one else ever be allowed to play him or her again!

I thought it was good fun and an interesting updating of the classic programmers of the thirties and forties. Though guilty of some bad acting, this is earnest enough and unpretentious, making it hard for me to dislike.

The whole production is a bit odd though, but I really enjoyed the scenes between Sheen and Carridine. The fact that we're watching a story within a story makes the oddness and exaggerations more palatable.",Positive "As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.

It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used ""eyewitness sightings"" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the ""creature"" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.

I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10",Negative "Having just wasted a couple of hours watching this and for 80% of that time in complete disbelief, I can give this garbage the turkey of the year award, no problem. To say the plot was unbelievable is some big understatement. Frankly I am lost for words to describe this utter tripe. Not only are the characters completely and utterly without any semblance of originality (this sort of stuff has been done much better in dozens of 'serial killer flicks')but the acting was dire. For those who pay to see this, I hope you get your money back, for those who were paid to do this, I hope you GIVE your money back. Believe me folks there are many new releases out there that are much, much better. Go see.",Negative "If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,

just people with a sense of humor.

For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.",Positive "Pakeezah is in my mind the greatest achievement of Indian cinema. The film is visually overwhelming but also emotionally breathtaking. The music, the songs, the sets, the costumes, the cinematography, in fact every creative element is worthy of superlatives.",Positive "I took a chance on ""Hardcastle and McCormick"" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection.",Positive "The trouble with the book, ""Memoirs of a Geisha"" is that it had Japanese surfaces but underneath the surfaces it was all an American man's way of thinking. Reading the book is like watching a magnificent ballet with great music, sets, and costumes yet performed by barnyard animals dressed in those costumes—so far from Japanese ways of thinking were the characters.

The movie isn't about Japan or real geisha. It is a story about a few American men's mistaken ideas about Japan and geisha filtered through their own ignorance and misconceptions. So what is this movie if it isn't about Japan or geisha? Is it pure fantasy as so many people have said? Yes, but then why make it into an American fantasy?

There were so many missed opportunities. Imagine a culture where there are no puritanical hang-ups, no connotations of sin about sex. Sex is natural and normal. How is sex handled in this movie? Right. Like it was dirty. The closest thing to a sex scene in the movie has Sayuri wrinkling up her nose and grimacing with distaste for five seconds as if the man trying to mount her had dropped a handful of cockroaches on her crotch.

Does anyone actually enjoy sex in this movie? Nope. One character is said to be promiscuous but all we see is her pushing away her lover because it looks like she doesn't want to get caught doing something dirty. Such typical American puritanism has no place in a movie about Japanese geisha.

Did Sayuri enjoy her first ravishing by some old codger after her cherry was auctioned off? Nope. She lies there like a cold slab of meat on a chopping block. Of course she isn't supposed to enjoy it. And that is what I mean about this movie. Why couldn't they have given her something to enjoy? Why does all the sex have to be sinful and wrong?

Behind Mameha the Chairman was Sayuri's secret patron, and as such he was behind the auction of her virginity. He could have rigged the auction and won her himself. Nobu didn't even bid. So why did the Chairman let that old codger win her and, reeking of old-man stink, get his fingers all over her naked body? Would any woman ever really forgive a man for that?

Let's try to make sense of this. By being behind Mameha the Chairman incurred debts for Sayuri's geisha training. In order to recoup his debts the Chairman had Sayuri sold to Dr. Crab. Through Mameha the Chairman sold Sayuri's sexual favors to that old geezer so that the Chairman could make some money out of her. The Chairman wasn't her patron. He was her pimp! Some romantic love story.

Yes, the film is gorgeous but it is like the beauty of a very attractive, alluring transvestite whose voice, appearance and every touch are thrilling. But under that very feminine surface lies an ominous secret. Under the incorrectly appearing Japanese surface of the film lurks the ominous secret that the heart, soul, spirit and core of this film is entirely American and male. Not the best thing to be if it is trying to be other than a lie, distortion, and terribly wrong.

Some contrasts between Japan and MOAG:

Japanese style – Refined, elegant simplicity. MOAG style – Peking Opera.

Japanese geisha – Hair swept up. MOAG geisha – Loose hair which surely must have gotten all gunked up in the thick paste of white makeup.

Japanese shaved ice - Japanese are rather strict about seasonal observances. Shaved ice is strictly a summer treat. MOAG shaved ice - The Chairman buys Chiyo, the young Sayuri played by the marvelous Suzuka Ohgo, this treat during cherry-blossom-viewing season. The thought made my entire body shiver with cold.

Japanese geisha – Trained and skilled entertainers. MOAG geisha - sluts.

Japanese wind chime - Used in the summer because hearing the sound it makes, thanks to the breeze, Japanese people feel somehow cooler. MOAG wind chime - a door bell! If a person stood in front of another's house and made noises with a wind chime they would be considered a lunatic, not gain entrance.

Japan – Emphasis on human relationships, group oriented. MOAG – ""I want a life that's mine"" American individualism.

Japanese traditional dance – Refined elegance. An almost geometrical and mechanical precision. MOAG dance – Martha Graham freaking out on LSD while wearing a not-very-auspicious white Japanese funeral shroud. Performed by a geisha down a ramp in a place that looks like a strip club? Ha ha ha! Is a strip club where they did most of their research on geisha?

Japan house fire – Setting or even letting a fire break out is worse than murder because it poses such a dire threat to the community. Fires can rip through those wooden villages, towns, and cities destroying hundreds or thousands of homes and killing as many people. MOAG house fire - Great adjunct to a fight scene but there are zero ramifications and because it is no longer needed the out-of-control fire miraculously puts itself out. Technically the movie ended here because at the very least Sayuri would have been ostracized and joined her sister among those never heard from again. Which is where both Arthur Golden and Rob Marshall should be exiled.

Enough. The movie stinks.",Negative "Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.

I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, ""Germans."") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.",Negative "1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.

",Negative """That '70s Show"" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes ""you son of a bitch!"", and when Kelso yells ""burn!"", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever.",Positive "Recently, a friend and I were discussing educational and ethical influences when we were growing up in the 1950's versus today. She mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who, in 1798, wrote The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Both of us had been required to recite parts of the epic poem in high school and in English Literature courses in college. My friend said, ""Its messages even might be called metaphysical within today's context.""

We tried reciting it and only remembered bits and pieces. (I have problems remembering Dr. Seuss.) I said I'd get two copies of the poem so each could read it. That was easy enough, but I was extremely surprised to find it had been made into a film. We looked forward to watching the film to see how it had been interpreted. After all, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't exactly light reading. After each had read the poem, we watched the film together.

We considered the film a remarkable achievement, especially considering it was made in the 1970's, before computers, before the so-called ""Ken Burns effect,"" and before special effects too often began compensating for a lack of substance. Particularly noteworthy are the 19th and 20th century illustrations culled from ""lesser known artists,"" such as Willy Pogany, the early Hollywood designer.

The film is narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, whom had taught the poem when he was a schoolmaster, adding a tone of authority and credibility in remaining true to the poem.

Its mastery is in the layers of subtle messages, conveyed without ""instructing,"" or becoming an oppressive and obvious morality tale. We found it such a refreshing change from today's 'in your face' and 'clobber them over the head' mentality. Most of today's morality messages in film are two-dimensional: extreme violence, murder and mayhem mark the bad. The bad are really, really, bad, and good are super heroes. It is as if human character lacked any nuance. The Rime of The Ancient Mariner is a celebration of the individual, of character, of an appreciation for celebrating all the richness life has to offer, within the larger context of humanity, i.e., man's capacity to give to others.

Proud of ourselves for having found this ""unknown"" gem, we then learned it had won the top award in its category five out of six times at ""name"" international film festivals. Another surprise was learning the film's director, Raul daSilva, is a recognized authority on early animation, and authored six award winning books about film.

This film's message is just as relevant today, if not more so, than when Coleridge penned the original epic poem and when Raul daSilva translated it to film. If I still was teaching high school, which I did for five years, I'd grab this one and show it to all my students. There's a level of richness here that naturally leads to discussion about the big and important issues all of us face, whether in 1798, 1978, or today--in fact, as long as humanity has a spiritual component.

Highly recommended.",Positive "The DVD was a joke, the audio for the first few minutes was terrible with sound out of sync and Segals voice not even his!!!! Pathetic! When the audio sync was better in about 5 minutes the poor plot, lines and actors should get another job because the movie business is not where any of them should be.

While Segal had some good movies in the early days the latest ones are a joke and should be a an embarrassment to him and the company that made it.

If Segal was the one that handled this he better return to having another party run the show, because he has no talent what so ever in this.

This film is a complete embarrassment to all involved in its production and a disgrace to all who viewed it. I turned it off in about 20 minutes.

I will be asking for my money back at Block Buster! Mark from Ontario, Canada",Negative "I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really ""good"" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.

The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The ""set"" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!

Suffice it to say I saw it for ""free"" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.",Negative "Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.

Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.

The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory...",Positive "Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, ""Are you ready, Pardner?"" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid.",Negative "I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.. I have seen other movies of his and they were also funny but this one really stick out in my mind because of the humor.. His I just can't say enough about this movie. I look for it to be on periodically but it never on enough for me. The people playing the homeless people were by comparison up to the funniest standards also. Please put this movie on more often. I can't see it enough..Leslie Ann Warren also was another favorite of mine, ever since Cinderella. I always thought that she wasn't really funny but loved her acting. In this movie she was very funny..and her and Mel did a great job together. They should put more of his movies on TV.",Positive "Unspeakably discombobulated turkey, a mix of anti-Nazi musical (!!), pre-war Americana and Agatha Christie whodunit spoof with one big, big problem: it's deadly unfunny. Besides the single-digit I.Q. plot and dialog, the most amazing aspect of ""Lady..."" is the berserk casting. Gene Wilder (star AND co-writer) tries hard at it all: he plays a romantic lead (with his looks!! and his age!! he and Woody Allen should start a club for clueless, mirrorless ageing comedians), and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart, and tries to sing and dance, and succeeds in NONE!! A looong shot from his good old days with Mel Brooks.

For a while I thought I was having a myopia fit, because everybody in the movie keeps saying Cherry Jones is this pretty hot chick, and that Michael Cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion!! The guy who plays Claire Bloom's male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies!! Mike Starr's over-the-top acting as the most incompetent, phoniest cop you EVER saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. The saddest note is to see wonderful Claire Bloom and Barbara Sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. At least I hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. No wonder acting prodigy Sukowa returned to Germany after she saw what Hollywood had in store for her!!

If you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director, study this one - otherwise stay away!!! - 1/10",Negative "I just purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the movie.",Positive "A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say ""What's on TV tonight?"" and we'd tell him ""Strangler of the Swamp"" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days!",Negative "This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.

Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best.",Positive "In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country.

They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.

They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in ""CADENA NACIONAL"" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.

They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).

They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.

They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).

They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.

They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.

That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.",Negative "When you typically watch a short film your always afraid that the person creating the film tries to throw too much into it. That's not the case with this one. A great story about a young girl who's had enough and other worldly forces trying to help make things right.

Eric Etebari does a wonderful job of representing the spirit of twisted justice and helps to convey the complexities of the blurred line of right and wrong.

Both the young girl and the father give great performances in this wonderful short film, but Eric's performance is definitely the show stealer in this story.

I definitely recommend this film for it's complexity, performance, and great over all story.",Positive "The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time!",Positive "I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.

Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.

I enjoy all three kinds of humor that ""Dirty Sànchez"" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. ""Jackass"" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.

This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.

Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character.",Positive "From the writer of ""What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"" and ""Hush .. Hush, Sweet Charlotte,"" this tail-end of the sixties horror cycle has some eerie and campy fun. Micheál Macliammóir does a Victor Buono-type bit, but too often the movie totters dangerously close to a bad musical ... there's a particularly awful children's recital about halfway through. Debbie taps, tangos and tricks up a lá Harlow, while Winters' religious fanatic has a lesbian edge to her. Agnes Moorehead checks in as an evangelist. Weaver has nothing to do - and even has to pay a gigolo to dance with Debbie.",Positive """Piece is Cake"" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.

In the March 1989 ""Aeroplane Monthly"", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:

""There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.

""There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...

""...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'.""

Beamont was, in his own words, ""a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time"".

Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.

""Piece of Cake"" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...",Negative "Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.

It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.",Negative "This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years.",Negative "

Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.

Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.

It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.

In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. ",Negative "At least for a half hour a week. I haven't been interested in anything on the big 3 networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) in years. All of the lions are interesting, although Larry can get annoying at times. I really like the Middle earth action figures they bring in with Hunter. Most of the other characters are interesting as well. The sideshow of Siegfried and Roy is entertaining at times, too. The animation is top notch, and definitely the best CG that has been done on a weekly TV show. Usually when they hire big names to star in a show, they're trying to hide a poor script or characters. Not entirely true in this show though, There's a couple characters that were weak and improved by the voice acting, but overall the characters stand on their own.

This is definitely for 16 and up. There's nothing here that most kids haven't already heard before though, and most of the jokes would probably just fly right over their heads. It's definitely not as crude and edgy as South Park, but does bring some of the same ""Bash everyone"" feel to it. One example is that it makes fun of both Dick Cheney and Barbara Streisand at the same time in one episode.

Father of the Pride and other Dreamworks productions like Shrek also feel like the spiritual successors of Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid. It's the same type of humor grown up. It may not be as witty as Spielberg's classic TV series, but it's still good.

I hope that it finishes this season off well, and is renewed for future seasons. Otherwise I may never find a reason to watch the big 3 again.",Positive "Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.

The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.

Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.

The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems — strangely enough — a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).

Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.

The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.

I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.",Negative "I am not sure who is writing these

glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.

Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.

This had no scares, very little Gore,

and a truly unattractive cast.

I watched this with three other friends

who I hope are still talking to me!

They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have

given this tripe a good review.",Negative "I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream ""SHUT UP ALREADY!!!"" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, ""Huh?""",Negative The Cure uses voice over to create an intense mood. Although the VO accounts for all of the film's lines it amazingly does not take away from the visual story. The use of multiple film stocks add a lot of texture to the story. The choice of combining b & w and color worked nicely to enhance the leaps in time. The ending will make you jump despite being able to anticipate the result. I was especially enjoyed the thrill of the film's suspense. The close-ups for the love scene are also lovely and reflect a tasteful eye. The piece is quite short but accomplishes a lot. The tight editing really helps to show off what a short film can do. Worth watching more than once!,Positive "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is the sequel to Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. Their bogus journey follower almost directly after the first movie, and does just as good of a job if not better to entertain the viewer.

The plot is an evil person from the future is trying to kill Bill and Ted using evil robots that look exactly like Bill and Ted. Once the robots kill Bill and Ted, they must compete with the grim reaper (death) and return their lives to normal.

The acting in the movie is top notch, and even thought it is a little weird at times, especially Bill and Ted's conversations, it is a great movie. The wannabe rockers sure have made another great movie. Pick this up the next time your at blockbuster!",Positive "A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being ""seen and not heard"" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.",Positive "When I first found out that Brian Krause was going to be in this movie, I wanted to watch. It took me weeks to realize that I've seen the original of this and loved it. So I had even more reason to watch. Well, I watched. It was actually better than most sequels for TV movies. I hate what happens to Brian's character (you can find out for yourself) and I didn't like most of the characters, Brian's one included. But the movie needed the cheesy and annoying and jerk-like characters to make Stanley Caldwell (Judd Nelson) shine once more. At the end, I was cheering for Stanley and his own happy ending. If you liked the original Cabin by the Lake or if you like horror movies without the blood, I'd suggest you watch this.",Positive "SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)

Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer.

Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.

The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.

The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.

This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10.",Negative "This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus. It turns out Candy was doing a favor for her (ex?)boyfriend, who's working for the ""commies"".

Superficially, there's a mystery here regarding Candy's motives and Skip spends much of the film determining her motives…. Actually he seems to just initially assume that she's a ""commie"", going so far as to pour beer in her face in a callous gesture. But the real question is – what's going on with Skip? What are his motives, and why does Candy like him so much? Why do we (the audience) want to like him so much? Basically what the film-makers have done here is create a very striking ""male fatale"" in Widmark's character and his performance. Just as the male audience tends to ponder through the length of a film like ""The Big Sleep"" or ""The Glass Key"" along with the main characters whether the female character is trustworthy or just a pretty face, the film-makers have here created a similar quandary for female viewers. Widmark is handsome, and there's also a charm in his boyish insouciance – but the first two times he meets our leading lady, he robs her and then punches her in the face. Eventually the question becomes – would Skip sink so low as to sell out his country for a buck (his comments to the police, like ""you're waving a flag at ME?"" make us suspect he would) or is he simply out for revenge for the murder of his friend Moe (Thelma Ritter)? I'm not sure that the film gives us a conclusive answer either way.

Thelma Ritter's character work deserves special mention – she has created a truly indelible character here. Fuller isn't afraid to give her plenty of ""business"" – in the form of physical objects that she uses to draw the audience into her world, particularly her used ties. Another example of Fuller's ""business"" would be the scene with Victor Perry (an actor I've seen elsewhere used to less effect) using the chopsticks to intimidate Candy.

The emphasis on Moe's relationship with Skip provides one of cinema's most revealing ""honor among thieves"" themes. In fact Skip has the same kind of ease and the same kind of casual relationship with the police, with the notable exception of Capt. Tiger (Murvyn Vye) who has a grudge against him. I loved the scene where he invited the cops in by name and offered them a beer when they came to pick him up at his shack. Those are the kind of details that make this film feel real – whether or not it really is ""realistic"" or whether that would matter are entirely separate questions.

All told, I would say this is an essential crime film which displays a lot of the best and most durable attributes of the ""film noir"" school of film-making. A predictable plot is off-set by a host of colorful characters (uniformly well-performed), cheap sets are disguised by the film's unrelenting pace, and the final product feels a lot more substantial than it probably is. This is the best film I've seen so far by Sam Fuller and helps me to see better why he's regarded as a master director – here he accomplished some things that I think he tried but ultimately failed to do in other films like ""The Crimson Kimono"" and ""Shock Corridor"" as far as very emphatic acting styles and really gripping suspense. This is one of my favorite performances from Widmark that I've seen so far – and Widmark was a talent that I'm tempted to say (based on the few extraordinary films I've seen with him) was comparable to that of Alan Ladd or Humphrey Bogart, although arguably he didn't make as many classic films.",Positive "This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.

This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.

Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. László Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.

Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.

It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.

An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.

4/10",Negative "This is a weird movie about an archaeologist studying the culture of the ancient Hohokam Indians. She takes a (really fake looking) mummy out of a burial cave and brings it home to study it. Well, pretty soon she starts acting weird and talking to this mummy. And shortly thereafter her son becomes possessed by the spirit of the mummy. Even stranger events take place as the spirit then tries to destroy the woman's family. This is actually REALLY BORING, overall, and it will make you fall asleep the first couple of times you try to watch it. But if you keep at it, you may just make it to the end.

Ahah! What is the secret of the mummy? Is the mummy's spirit angry that it has been removed from the cave? You may not be able to ascertain what the spirit's motivation is, but if you like spooky shenanigans on a low-budget (and 70's hairstyles!) this will have a certain comforting appeal.

The way I have described the story is much clearer than the jumbled, boring way the film lays the story out. Can a boring movie really be fascinating? Well...somehow this one achieves that. Maybe this is a good movie at heart but executed in a rather awkward way. I don't know. What I do know is that I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite its dullness.

Fans of ""Spider Baby"" will be interested to know that a couple of music cues from that film are used in this one (including an instrumental version of the theme song).

Featuring one frightening and fairly well-done sequence showing possessed boulders and rocks rolling around by themselves and eventually attacking some people in a camper. Other scenes in the movie are merely spooky or quirky; but this one scene is actually pretty scary.

See this! It's weird and it's worth your time. You might even want one on your shelf.",Positive "This movie is great entertainment to watch with the wife or girlfriend. There are laughs galore and some very interesting little nudist stories going on here. The actresses are all very interesting and definitely worth watching in their natural beauty. Maslin beach life is full of diverse nudists and personality types. The Australian coast scenery is, simply, splendid to see. What a place to visit, to say the least, and one day it may become my hideaway. I really enjoy this movie and every time I watch it I enjoy it more. I would love to see more of these characters and I always wonder what became of them. Although the plot is somewhat soft, this movie is, of course, a great excuse to just sit back on the couch and enjoy the wonderful and famous Maslin beach with these wonderful nudists and their own personal stories.",Positive "Ok, I like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal ""probe""...that was great!).

I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).

Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.

Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!

Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.

Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is ""S**t"" or ""F**k"".

There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap!",Negative "I happened to catch this film at a screening in Brooklyn - it's difficult to describe the plot; it has a lot of wacky characters, but let's just say I'd have a hard time choosing which one made me laugh the hardest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Even the peripheral roles are well written and well acted.

There are numerous small touches that make it unique and very enjoyable, it has a few ""devices"" that pop up and add another hilarious layer. It is refreshing to watch; not some recycled stuff I'd seen many times before. If this film could reach a wider audience, I'm certain it would be a real crowd-pleaser, the story is so original and heartfelt.

There's a lot here to like, funny back-stories, mishaps and misunderstandings which set up the final act and dramatic conclusion. Cross Eyed is a very funny movie with a ton of heart; it's a touching story with fast paced comedy woven throughout. Definitely worth seeing!",Positive "Anna (Charlotte Burke), who is just on the verge of puberty, begins to have strange dreams which start affecting her in real life--especially involving a boy named Mark (Elliott Spiers) who she meets in her dreams.

Very unusual fantasy with some truly terrifying moments. Despite the fact that this is about a teenage girl and has a PG-13 rating, this is NOT for children. Also, if you hate fantasies stay far away. But if you're game for something different this fits the bill.

Well directed by Bernard Rose with a just beautiful music score and a few nice, scary jolts. The only thing that prevents this from being a really great movie is Burke--she's not a very good actress (it's no surprise that this has been her only film) and it hurts the movie. However, everybody else is just great.

Spiers is very good as Mark; Glenne Headley (faking a British accent very well) is also very good as Anna's mother and Ben Cross is both frightening and sympathetic as Anna's father.

A sleeper hit when released in 1988, it's since faded away. That's too bad--it's really very good.",Positive this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!!,Positive "I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent ""Sin City"" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like ""final fantasy"" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.",Positive "If you want to remember MJ, this is a good place to start. This movie features sweet tunes, MJ as robot, and a crazy, messed-up plot. I recall, many a night, passing out to this fine feature film in college, and pondering the sheer awesomenes of whoever decided to green light this ridiculous piece of .

There is lots of singing. Lots of dancing. There is lots of singing while dancing. MJ slays it as you would expect when it comes to this stuff. But there is much more to this movie. There is claymation. There are fat children (clay). There is an anthropomorphic rabbit that michael jackson has to battle in a dance off (obviously clay too). There is Joe Pesci as well (not made of clay).

RIP- we love you Michael! It is a sad day for all of us.",Positive "The big problem is where to begin as this movie needs your attention the forthcoming two hours and you better not miss some minutes for getting a coke as there is a danger you can't follow. But good there is also a pause-button. Bruce Willis must travel into a timemachine to find out some antivirus for a virus that made animals rule over the world in 1996. Thanks to some mistakes he first ends up in 1990, then in the First World War and how messed up it all might look like, Terry Gilliam comes up with what must be one of the most intelligent scripts ever. This ex-Monty Phyton man knows exactly how genius SF-stories has to be told like and his choice of cast couldn't have been any better, there is the lunatic Brad Pitt (his performance in the asylum is memorable) and a superb Bruce Willis who proves he is more than some Schwarzenegger-wanna be. It's a movie you can watch over and over again as the script is so weird and complicated (and yet you can follow) that every view gives you other surprises. One of my big favourites.",Positive "Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.

If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.

Awful.

Ridiculous.

Waste of two hours of my life.",Negative "Just kidding, I rented 12 Monkeys the other day because I am a huge Bruce Willis fan and I heard some things about the film. Some good and some bad, but it was one of those films you had to pay attention to every second, so I was a bit worried. Just because I felt like for a minute if this was going to be one of those films that I had to watch several times to get. But I watched it last night and I was really impressed, this movie had everything in it: action, drama, sci-fi, history, dark humor, and even a little romance. The actors all did a terrific job, I give a lot of credit to Bruce, during his scene in the car with his psychiatrist, he really got to me. But Brad Pitt, I'm just amazed with how much of a great job he did. He didn't over do his character, who was crazy, and just made it work and was extremely believable. The story was just scary, but very good and a wake up call.

James Cole is a man in the future where a virus broke out in the past and killed 5 billion people and only 1% of the population survived including him. Animals are now ruling the ground above while the humans are down below, but scientists send James to the past of 1990(really meaning to send him to '96), to find out about information of the virus. James gets put into a mental institution meeting his new psychiatrist, Dr. Kathryn Raily and another mental patient, Jeffrey Goines. He tells them the future, of course no one believes him, he goes back to the future. But the scientists send him back to the correct year to where the doctor is kidnapped by James, but he tells her more, and believes him. Now they are set on trying to prevent the virus from ever happening.

12 Monkeys was an incredible film. Like I said the story was so scary just because it's not at all hard to believe that we are not far from that happening. But the whole movie was just great, the cast, the sets, just the whole picture was a great one. It had a Terminator type of feel to it where we might loose something precious one day, ourselves if we don't listen to others. What is right and what is wrong? Who knows? But I would highly recommend 12 Monkeys, it's a great movie that if you give it the proper chance, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

9/10",Positive "As someone else mentioned, it begins with a bizarre prologue about a little blond girl killing a cat. Then the main story: a photographer (Gaffari) and a writer (Shepard) meet by chance and take a trip into the mountains. First they spend the night at an inn where the slightly deaf landlord gets hollered at, with increasing irritation to the audience, by Gaffari. Once in the mountains they seek shelter again and are invited in by a kindly old lady who seems overly hospitable to strangers (Hansel and Gretel, anyone?) What happens next I will leave for the bold viewer to sort out because I most assuredly couldn't. Now, I like Eurohorror, and this woulda been better if only Artigot (writer AND director) had made some attempt at logical story telling. The backdrop (Pyrenees?) makes an excellent and intriguing location for mysterious and occult occurrences. The verdant peaks could easily obscure supernatural forces and those who command them. The photography is nice. Just wish the whole thing made sense. You can view this film at archive.org.",Negative "To put it simply, I enjoyed this film. The reason for my interest & enjoyment was not related to anything other than the subject matter itself. I had heard tales from my mother and grandmother about how Northern England working class life and attitudes used to be (as experienced by them)and this is an interesting depiction that seems to faithfully represent what they told me. In particular, the paternalistic but overbearing father who ""knows"" what is best for his family along with his stubborness when this paradigm is challenged. (Not much has changed there then!!)

People who have seen the play will probably be disappointed with the film because the story does not easily transfer across the different media. In a sense however, the film is an historical document and I personally enjoyed it, if only because of the way it conveyed a social phenomenon.",Positive "I went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.

I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......

As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.

I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!

Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film.",Positive "An old family story told to two young girls by their grandfather is brought to life 16 years later as he foretold.

People are getting murdered and blood is being spilled and rats are scampering all over and naked bodies are being enjoyed.

Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) is the suspect, but we know she is not the killer. Is it Franziska (Marina Malfatti)? Is it Evelyn back from death for revenge? Is it a plot to steal an inheritance? The color is superb in this thriller from Emilio Miraglia, who only did one other Giallo, as far as I know.

The only thing that spoiled the film was the appearance that several frames were cut out. Someone calls the police, and suddenly they are there trying to save Kitty.",Positive "I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.

The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.

It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10",Negative "I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi",Negative "*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*

When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.

First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning ""Super Toilet"" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.

If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it… I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.",Negative "The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.

Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.

7/10",Positive "Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance.",Positive This is a low budget film with a cast of unknowns and a minimum of on location shoots. The Philippines substitute for Thailand and nobody actually goes to Hong Kong. The stock shot of a Cathay Pacific jumbo jet landing at the old airport makes the transition perfectly. This film proves that you need neither mega budgets nor a headliner star to produce an excellent movie. It contains neither the gaffes nor the excesses that young filmakers often stumble into. Solid workmanship from people who know all the aspects of movie making and who understand the compromises between art and box office. An excellent piece of work!,Positive "A propaganda film for the Palestinian ""cause"". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.",Negative "The third and last part of the Bourne trilogy (duh), is lacking a bit in the story department, but covers it with extensive action scenes! Twi in particular take up quite some of the running time and make this movie better.

The director and star (Damon) themselves agreed that it was difficult to find a story for the last part, because the end of the second movie was quite ... advanced story-wise. How they got around that? The action scenes, for once, but they did another thing too, which I can't reveal, because that would be a spoiler. But if you watch the movie, than you'll notice it! Funnily enough I read, that this adaptation of the Bourne books is the least accurate of all three films .. if that means anything to you :o)",Positive "Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success.",Positive "Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.

I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.",Negative "When I first read Armistead Maupins story I was taken in by the human drama displayed by Gabriel No one and those he cares about and loves. That being said, we have now been given the film version of an excellent story and are expected to see past the gloss of Hollywood...

Writer Armistead Maupin and director Patrick Stettner have truly succeeded!

With just the right amount of restraint Robin Williams captures the fragile essence of Gabriel and lets us see his struggle with issues of trust both in his personnel life(Jess) and the world around him(Donna).

As we are introduced to the players in this drama we are reminded that nothing is ever as it seems and that the smallest event can change our lives irrevocably. The request to review a book written by a young man turns into a life changing event that helps Gabriel find the strength within himself to carry on and move forward.

It's to bad that most people will avoid this film. I only say that because the average American will probably think ""Robin Williams in a serious role? That didn't work before!"" PLEASE GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE! Robin Williams touches the darkness we all must find and go through in ourselves to be better people. Like his movie One Hour Photo he has stepped up as an actor and made another quality piece of art.

Oh and before I forget, I believe Bobby Cannavale as Jess steals every scene he is in. He has the 1940's leading man looks and screen presence. It's this hacks opinion he could carry his own movie right now!!

S~",Positive "Omen IV: The Awakening starts at the 'St. Frances Orphanage' where husband & wife Karen (Faye Grant) & Gene York (Michael Woods) are given a baby girl by Sister Yvonne (Megan Leitch) who they have adopted, they name her Delia. At first things go well but as the years pass & Delia (Asia Vieria) grows up Karen becomes suspicious of her as death & disaster follows her, Karen is convinced that she is evil itself. Karen then finds out that she is pregnant but discovers a sinister plot to use her as a surrogate mother for th next Antichrist & gets a shock when she finds out who Delia's real father was...

Originally to be directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard who either quit or was sacked & was replaced by Jorge Montesi who completed the film although why he bothered is anyone's guess as Omen IV: The Awakening is absolutely terrible & a disgrace when compared to it illustrious predecessors. The script by Brian Taggert is hilariously bad, I'm not sure whether this nonsense actually looked good as the written word on a piece of paper but there are so many things wrong with it that I find even that hard to believe. As a serious film Omen IV: The AWakening falls flat on it's face & it really does work better if you look at it as a comedy spoof, I mean the scene towards the end when the Detective comes face-to-face with a bunch of zombie carol singers who are singing an ominous Gothic song has to be seen to be believed & I thought it was absolutely hilarious & ridiculous in equal measure. Then there's the pointless difference between this & the other Omen films in that this time it's a young girl, the question I ask here is why? Seriously, why? There's no reason at all & isn't used to any effect at all anyway. Then of course there's the stupid twist at the end which claims Delia has been keeping her brother's embryo inside herself & that in a sinister conspiracy involving a group of Satan worshippers it has been implanted in Karen so she can give birth to the Antichrist is moronic & comes across as just plain daft. At first it has a certain entertainment value in how bad it is but the unintentional hilarity gives way to complete boredom sooner rather than later.

It's obviously impossible to know how much of Omen IV: The Awakening was directed by Girard & Montesi but you can sort of tell all was not well behind the camera as it's a shabby, cheap looking poorly made film which was actually made-for-TV & it shows with the bland, flat & unimaginative cinematography & production design. Then there's the total lack of scares, atmosphere, tension & gore which are the main elements that made the previous Omen films so effective.

The budget must have been pretty low & the film looks like it was. The best most stylish thing about Omen IV: The Awakening is the final shot in which the camera rises up in the air as Delia walks away into the distance to reveal a crucifix shaped cross made by two overlapping path's but this is the very last shot before the end credits roll which says just about everything. I have to mention the music which sounds awful, more suited to a comedy & is very inappropriate sounding. The acting is alright at best but as usual the kid annoys.

Omen IV: The Awakening is rubbish, it's a totally ridiculous film that tries to be serious & just ends up coming across as stupid. The change of director's probably didn't help either, that's still not a excuse though. The last Omen film to date following the original The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978) & The Final Conflict (1981) all of which are far superior to this.",Negative "The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).",Negative "Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.",Negative "Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic.

The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.

You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment.

There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement?

All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete waste of time.",Negative "My all-time favorite movie! I have seen many movies, but this one beats them all! Excelent acting, wonderful story. You will, as a ""normal"" caring person start to love George. Altough he is an actor, he is also himself and a very lovable person. And maby most important thing: you will learn to respect & look different to people with Down Syndrome.",Positive "The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.

Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).

Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.

See it with an open mind!",Positive "Everything is idyllic in Suburbia when the little family moves in, as the father have got a new job in a computer company there. But no paradise would be complete without its snake. Strange things happens as the family joins the local country club without the husband, as it certainly holds secrets. The father is not a joiner, but pressure is on him to join, as everyone who is anything in the neighborhood and at work are members. Robert Urich's good guy part is a bit tepid, but Joanna Cassidy as good natured housewife turning nasty sizzles. Suspenseful and well-made chiller with a bitchy Susan Lucci as club chairperson. Look out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a bit part as a valet. The movie captures the sense of paranoia and the special effects final is worth waiting for. I have seen this movie quite a few times.",Positive "In Mexico this movie was aired only in PayTV. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, is a true example about a good German and specially, about a good man. The conversations between Tukur's character and the Nazi prosecutor are specially interesting. A true ideas' war: two different Germans, both with faith in there believes. Bonhoeffer was a very complex person: man, freedom fighter, boyfriend, churchman and a great intellectual; Ulrich Tukur is outstanding as Bonhoeffer. I recommended this film a lot, specially in this difficult times for the planet. In Mexico we don't know a lot about Pastor Bonhoeffer life and legacy, this is a great work for rescue a forgotten hero.",Positive "But this is a great martial arts film. Liu Chia Liang ranks second to none as a fight choreographer, only Sammo Hung at his best compares. This is immediately clear from his proud exhibition of technique -rather than flashy camera angles etc. - during fights. The direction is tightly controlled to not only excite the viewer by the speed and movement but to awe her with the precise skill displayed. This film benefits also from Liu's participation in front of the camera. Liu's performance at the banquet scene with which the film opens is one of the high points in kung fu movie history. Liu is supported by the beautiful and talented Hui Ying Hung (of My Young Auntie fame) and 'Hsiao Hou' whose acrobatics are breathtaking, and preferable to any amount of wirework As for the plot , this film follows the not uncommon theme of revenge, but with character and moral development along the way, and a most fitting resolution. The humour in this is also of the best. If you only watch one kung fu film ever, this would be a good choice- it has it all.",Positive "Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a ""Napoleon Dynamite"" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.

The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.

Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.",Negative "Poorly-made ""blaxploitation"" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****",Negative "It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, ""Paris, je t'aime"" is breathtaking, showing that, as ""Love Actually"" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.

MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...

QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.

LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.

TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.

LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.

PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.

BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.

PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.

PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.

QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.

PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.

FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.

QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.

14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.

With Feist on the background, ""Paris, je t'aime"" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment!",Positive "This is one of the first and best Columbos, starring Robert Culp and Ray Milland. Robert Culp appeared on another Columbo, as did several other villains, including Patrick McGoohan, William Shatner, and Jack Cassidy. Ray Milland also made a later appearance.

In this one, Ray Milland is convinced his beautiful wife, played by Patricia Crowley, is having an affair, so he hires Culp to investigate. Culp has a blackmailing business on the side, so he gives Milland a fake report and threatens Crowley with the real one if she doesn't pay up. They get into a huge fight in Culp's home, and she winds up murdered. Enter Columbo.

Culp does everything he can to get Columbo off the case, including offering him a job, but Columbo is on to him from the beginning.

Excellent episode.",Positive "whereas the hard-boiled detective stories of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler have fitted to cinema like a fox in a chicken coop - indeed creating the definitively modern American genre and style in the process - those of what might be called Golden Age fiction have made barely any impression whatsoever. The problem with books like those of Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers or S.S. Van Dine (on whose work this film is based), is that they are low on action or variety - whereas Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe traverse the mean streets of LA, working class tenements, bars, offices, wealthy mansions, and meet all sorts of exciting dangers and violence, Golden Age fiction is generally fixed in location, the scene of the murder, usually a lavish country house, and the action is limited to investigating clues and interviewing suspects. This is a very static procedure, plot reduced to puzzle.

This, of course, is as much ideological as anything else, the Golden Age stories dealing with a society hostile to change and movement; the hard-boiled novels recording an urban reality increasingly moving away from a centre (both of authority, and of a city), dividing itself up into hostile, ever uncontrollable and lawless camps. Another major problem with Golden age fiction is character - because we cannot know the answer to the crime until the end, we cannot gain access to characters' motivations or emotions, being defined solely by their potential need to murder. The detective, unlike the anxious, prejudice-ridden private eyes, are simply there to be brilliant, and maybe a little eccentric.

The problem with most films from Golden Age books is that they try to be period recreations of the Merchant Ivory/Jane Austen school, and end up looking silly. There have been successes, for example the radical reworkings of Ellery Queen and others by Claude Chabrol. In the English-speaking world, there have really only been two. The Alistair Sim classic, 'Green For Danger', works because it pushes the form almost into parody, while never betraying the integrity or interest of the mystery.

Before that came Michael Curtiz's brilliant 'The Kennel Murder Case'. The narrative is pure Golden Age. A repulsive character is introduced who gives a number of potential suspects reason to kill him. He is duly murdered in a seemingly foolproof manner, indicating suicide, slumped in a locked room. The caricatured policemen fall hopelessly for the bait. It is up to Philo Vance, gentleman and amateur detective, neither old nor fat, to read the clues more insightfully, open the case out of the confines of the room, and eventually solve the case, the corpse being little more than the pretext for intellectual stimulation.

What is interesting is not this detective plot - which can only ever be unsatisfying as all solutions are - although it is rarely less than entertaining, and full of comical bits of business. There isn't even really an attempt to 'subvert' the image of the perfect detective - there is one alarming scene where a brutal sergeant threatens to rough up a suspect, with no protest from Vance, but that's about it.

What marks 'Kennel' as a classic is its modernity. Curtiz is not generally considered a great auteur, because he has no consistent themes or evidence of artistic development. But he was Hollywood's greatest craftsman, and he is on sensational form here. if the Golden Age detective story is mere puzzle, Curtiz takes this idea to is logical extreme, creating an abstract variation on his source, reducing narrative, character and location to geometry, a series of lines, from the beautiful art-deco sets to the glorious camera movements which suddenly break from a static composition , and, as they glide furiously at an angle, jolt the dead decor to life.

This treatment is appropriate to a story that resolutely refuses realism, it is a pattern that turns the detective plot into a hall of mirrors, like the two central brothers, or the original crime itself, borrowed from an 'Unsolved Mysteries' book. This fantasy world of nasty rich men who collect Oriental relics (shades of 'The Moonstone'?), inscrutable Chinese servants, ex-cons turned butlers, dog-loving fops, Runyonesque cops, is the perfect habitat for Vance, a man who will drop a cruise to Europe on a fanciful hunch, who knows the social world of these people, and yet is tainted by his interest in crime and association with the police, or would be if he wasn't anything more than a thinking machine, William Powell, the greatest American comedian of the decade, bravely subsuming his idiosyncratic humanity.

But if the treatment is rarefied, the climax is spectacularly brutal, involving vicious dogs and attempted murder. The police and the detective, supposed to be preventing crime, are guilty of inciting one.",Positive "I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined.

The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.

With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.",Negative "What an unfortunate mess is ""Shiner."" I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.

While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the ""straight"" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.

With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.

As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.

Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.",Negative "Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old ""ladies"" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick!

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): ""Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie""! But, God, No!!!!",Negative "Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.

Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.

The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.

Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.

The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.

Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended.",Positive "The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.

The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.

The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).

Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.",Negative "Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.

But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just ""too bright"". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.

The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.

So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.",Negative "Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.

As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as ""imagination"" and ""common sense"" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.

And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.

Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.

It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.",Positive "The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, ""Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?""

Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine ""Kind Hearts and Coronets"" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.

The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies.",Positive The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks.,Negative "That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.",Negative "Like the gentle giants that make up the latter half of this film's title, Michael Oblowitz's latest production has grace, but it's also slow and ponderous. The producer's last outing, ""Mosquitoman-3D"" had the same problem. It's hard to imagine a boring shark movie, but they somehow managed it. The only draw for Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy was it's passable animatronix, which is always fun when dealing with wondrous worlds beneath the ocean's surface. But even that was only passable. Poor focus in some scenes made the production seems amateurish. With Dolphins and Whales, the technology is all but wasted. Cloudy scenes and too many close-ups of the film's giant subjects do nothing to take advantage of IMAX's stunning 3D capabilities. There are far too few scenes of any depth or variety. Close-ups of these awesome creatures just look flat and there is often only one creature in the cameras field, so there is no contrast of depth. Michael Oblowitz is trying to follow in his father's footsteps, but when you've got Shark-Week on cable, his introspective and dull treatment of his subjects is a constant disappointment.",Positive "This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much ""action"". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing.",Positive "This was what black society was like before the crack epidemics, gangsta rap, and AIDS that beset the ghettos in the eighties. Decent, hardworking families that struggled to get by and all the traumas and tribulations they faced. Black America was a different group of people in the seventies. Still full of hope and flying high on the civil rights movements of the sixties, times were hard but still worth fighting for. Keepin' your head above water, making a wave when you can, this show showed how black society struggled to work together as people and families, before they started to prey on each other and everyone else in order to survive the horrors of the ghettos. It is heart-breaking to see what the black ghettos were like then and what they have become now.",Positive "This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a ""feel-good"" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: ""it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do."" What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore ""buffing"" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading ""The Warrior Elite"" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!

",Negative "I don't like using the word ""awful"" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.",Negative "October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you.",Positive "OK, if you're a woman who's got aggression issues, you might like this movie. Hate your significant other? This movie is for you. For the guys, it will be a bag of laughs.

It's sad when former award winning actresses have to do cut rate movies.

The only really good part is the last 10 seconds. Even that was a load of cheese.

My wife is picking the worst movies lately. This is what you get (I) for letting my wife pick movies based on reading reviews on movie rental sites.",Negative This was the third remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENIEMY After YAARANA(1995) and AGNISAKSHI(1996)

AGNISAKSHI was the only one which worked and was a better film

DARAAR is directed by Abbas Mustan who sadly failed in their attempt here

the story was good but the handling wasn't that good and the heroine was shown too regressive and the climax too was disappointing

Direction is bad Music is good

Rishi reprises his role of YAARANA(strangely which also was a remake of SWTE) and looks too fat for the lead and is okay Juhi is decent while Arbaaz tries too hard in his debut and does manage in many scenes to chill the audiences but his voice was terrible Johny is too loud,Negative "On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their ""usual"" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a ""straight"" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers ""see"" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.",Positive "Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.

Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.

Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.

The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.",Positive "My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.",Negative "The 1983 BBC production of ""Jane Eyre"" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This ""Jane Eyre"" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in ""Scarlet"", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this ""Jane Eyre"" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough ""kissing scenes"". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some ""Hollywood movie"" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include ""crazy, madly in love"" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as ""boring and old-fashioned"". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton!",Positive """Father is still away on business"" was headline of an review after ""Promise Me This"" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in ""Life Is A Miracle"". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film.",Positive "Things to Come is an historic film. Along with Metropolis (1927), it stands as one of the first great science fiction spectacles. It is also one of the first doomsday movies. It is remarkable how the filmmakers predict the start of the Second World War within a year, and even, in a subtle way, the year it would end in the real world. But then the film departs from reality, depicting a world ravaged by war (only substitute poison gas for nuclear weapons which of course did not exist in 1936).

The last half hour of the film is an incredible sight, making groundbreaking use of models and matte paintings -- later to become staples of the science fiction genre. It is sad that, after Things to Come, Sci-fi would become identified with cheaply made b-movies, a stereotype that wouldn't be broken until 2001:A Space Odyssey more than 30 years later. If they'd stuck with the quality of the effects in this film, things would have been very different in Hollywood.

Raymond Massey and some of his co-stars play multiple roles in this film, to good effect. Massey plays a great ""Doctor Who""-like role as a pilot from an advanced (for 1970) civilization who tries to win over the populace of a devastated country ruled by a simple-minded warlord (a very effective performance by Ralph Richardson). Ultimately, the storyline covers 100 years. But that's a big problem with this film -- there really isn't a cohesive storyline.

Perhaps in such an episodic film -- somewhat reminiscent of Intolerance, actually -- it's hard to have a conventional plot, but I felt more could have been made of the material, and although the visuals in the final third of the picture are indeed stunning and worth the price of admission ... the plot is nonexistent and the movie itself suddenly ends just as it is getting interesting. Maybe the producers were thinking of another future sci-fi innovation: a sequel?

Things to Come is a film every serious sci-fi buff should see at least once. Unlike Metropolis, however, it might not bear repeated viewings.",Positive "Although I had seen ""Gymkata"" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.

After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.

It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of ""Parmistan"" to enter and hopefully win ""The Game,"" a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like ""Yak Power."" The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.

Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good.",Negative Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out?,Positive "Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.

The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.

I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, ""My Bonnie"", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, ""Look, talent!"" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and ""remembered"" that the film opens with ""She Loves You"", instead of ""My Bonnie"". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that ""She Loves You"" just doesn't fit. Also, in this ""later"" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, ""Look, GIRLS!""..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.

Another irritation was how ""choppy"" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.

My point is, the ""best"" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the ""Shake, Rattle & Roll"" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the ""alternate versions"" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.

All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the ""birth of the Beatles"". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, ""Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so"", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.

The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.

If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, ""The Beatles' Anthology"", as it was ""written"" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the ""Birth of the Beatles""--a MUST for any ""real"" or casual Beatle fan.",Positive "Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.",Negative "It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful ""Ninotchka"" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.

It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's ""Camille"", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.

However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the ""chica-choca"" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.",Negative "HAH! So this is the movie that the ""Next Action Stars"" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...

Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this ""teleplay"" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it.",Negative "Walter Matthau and George Burns were a famous vaudeville comedy act, Lewis and Clark, who haven't spoken in over 10 years. Burns retired and Matthau took it personally and has held a grudge ever since. Such is the premise of this hilarious Neil Simon play made into a movie. Of course, what makes it so good is Matthau and Burns in their prime, and the material is funnier than anything you can find today. Richard Benjamin shines as Matthau's nephew and agent. There's even old clips of actual stars of the golden era to get you into the groove of the film, and character actor Fritz Feld starts it all off with a ""pop."" Rosetta LaNoire, who started out in the 30s in theater with Orson Welles and later was Grandma on ""Family Matters,"" is great in a small role.

The only problem I had with it (and maybe I'm being too picky and/or serious) is the way Matthau treats Burns when they first meet. Granted, he's had a lot of resentment festering in all these years, but some of the things he does would be considered rude or just plain bad manners taken out of context. Also, I'm used to seeing Matthau act that way in other movies, but not to George Burns. And, Matthau's bellowing tends to get a little old.

All in all, if you need a consistently funny film to help and forget your troubles, put in ""The Sunshine Boys."" They'll lift your spirits and make you think of a simpler time and way of life.

Benjamin: ""You have to slide it.""

Matthau: ""Wait, wait. I think you have to slide it.""",Positive "Five Across the Eyes starts as five young teenage girls are driving home in time for their curfew, they stop off at a store & accidentally hit another car & decide to just drive off & leave it. Soon after the other car forces them to stop & a crazy woman with a shotgun gets out & shouts at them, makes them take their clothes off & makes them pee on them & then randomly drives off. Shaken & shocked the girls think their ordeal is over but the crazy woman comes back for seconds as she seems intent on killing the terrified girls who are lost & are low on gas...

Produced & directed by Greg Swinson & Ryan Theissen with Swinson writing the thing & Theissen responsible for the cinematography & editing I have to say that Five Across the Eyes is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst, I mean I'm struggling to think of a film I have seen that's worse. Now let me start off by saying that I am sure a lot of the film-making decision taken here were deliberate to try & provoke atmosphere, tension, realism & suspense but there is not one aspect of Five Across the Eyes that I didn't hate it to be honest it looks like a bad home video that has been put up on YouTube & even then it's still slightly embarrassing & a frankly worthless waste of 90 odd minutes of my time that I could have been doing something more entertaining & fun like pulling my fingernails out with pliers. The reviews on the web seem quite positive but on the IMDb (the amount of 1 Star comments is revealing & they can't all be wrong, right?) & it's message board which I think is much more of an indicator of what the average person thinks it's absolutely trashed by just about everyone & the phrase 'the worst film I have ever seen' is used a few times & to be fair most of these negative comments mention th same things & I have to agree with them. The story is terrible, alright I suspect it's meant to be minimalistic but this minimal? There's never any reason or explanation for the events that happen & it just feels totally random. It goes on for ages, the amount of plot here would struggle to fill a thirty minute made for telly program let along a full length feature. The dialogue is awful with these annoying girls who don't seem to have a brain cell between them taking about random stuff & screaming a lot. Oh god the screaming, there are seemingly endless scenes of these girls screaming or crying or whining which not only irritates & annoys & prevents any sane viewer feeling any sort of sympathy for them it also makes what they are trying to say almost impossible to hear properly. Then there's the real killer, the entire film is set & shot within the confines of a mini van, seriously the camera never leaves this car & as you can imagine it gets really boring, add that the low body count of just one person killed on screen & Five Across the Eyes is a film that I hated with a passion.

On a technical level again I can see that the film-making style here was a deliberate choice but I have to be honest again & say Five Across the Eyes is the worst looking film I have ever seen. As a fan of film I like my films to look like proper films as it's a visual medium & I definitely don't want them to look worse than the average YouTube video or my home films shot on a camcorder while I was drunk. It really does look that amateurish & that bad, it's a complete eyesore & I hated every moment of every second of it. Just think The Blair Witch Project (1999) only ten times worse looking & sounding & you will be almost there. There are times during Five Across the Eyes when you literally can't tell what's going on or happening because of the camera-work & the almost pitch black & grainy contrast levels. The violence is tame too with a few splashes of blood & a stabbing at the end.

Low budget doesn't even begin to describe Five Across the Eyes, with a supposed budget of about $4,000 this is easily one of the lowest budgeted films ever given a wide release. The two vans in the film were owned by members of the production & that's basically pretty much the entire budget right there, the locations. The acting is pretty bad by the main cast, I just hated all the fake put on crying & screaming that didn't convince at all but did irritate immensely.

Five Across the Eyes will go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen & I have seen a few films, whenever anyone now ask's me what's the worst film I have ever seen Five Across the Eyes will definitely get a mention. I hated it, every single aspect & wretched moment of it.",Negative "Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This ""film"" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.

The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.",Negative "I saw the movie recently during the Boston Film festival. The movie was very entertaining and is something that I believe the world, and black America is ready to see. It has comedy,drama, the soundtrack is great. It is an all around good film. The characters were well developed, and the movie had a wide variety of prominent actors, such as Wood Harris(Remember the Titains, Paid in Full), Brian J. White (Trois 3, Mr 3000), and the wonderful Zoe Saldana(Drumline, Pirates of the Caribbean). The movie tackles many relevant topics in todays society in a short period of time, and does so with class and grace. This is not only a story about life in the hospital, however it is a story about people and their personal journey to discovering who they are, or who they are going to be.",Positive "Greta Garbo's American film debut is an analogy of how our lives can be swept off course by fate and our actions, as in a torrent, causing us to lose a part of ourselves along the way.

Greta plays Leonora, a poor peasant girl in love with Ricardo Cortez's character Don Rafael, a landowner. Ricardo is in love with her too, but is too easily influenced by his domineering mother. Leonora ends up homeless and travels to Paris, where she becomes a famous opera singer and develops the reputation for being a loose woman. In reality, part of her attitude is bitterness over Rafael's abandonment.

She returns to her home to visit her family and eventually confronts Rafael. Surprisingly, no one knows that she's the famous La Brunna, and Garbo acts up her role as the diva she truly was and re prised with such cool haughtiness in her later portrayals.

Ricardo Cortez reminds one a lot of Valentino in looks in this part, and he was groomed to be a Valentino clone by MGM, though he never thought he could be in reality and he was right. He is believable in an unsympathetic part as a weak willed Mama's boy, and allows himself to age realistically but comically at the end of the movie. He fails to win Leonora when she returns home, and later when he follows her, his courage is undermined.

This movie is beautifully shot, with brilliant storm sequences and the sets depicting Spain at the time are authentic looking. There are also some fine secondary performances by old timers Lucien Littlefield, Tully Marshall, and Mack Swain.

Although this is a story of lost love and missed chances, I don't think Leonora and Rafael would have been happy together, as he needed a more traditional wife and she was very much a career woman, and I don't think would have been happy in a small village. The ending is true to life and pulls no punches.

See this one as Garbo's American film debut and a precursor of things to come",Positive "bad acting, bad southern accents, inconsistent cinematography, horrible script...

I was looking forward to this film at a recent film festival and was so discouraged after seeing it. It contains quote/unquote name talent, but they do not deliver. Of course the basis for this is the uneven and uninteresting story that is told.

don't bother",Negative "Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.",Positive "Back when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.

I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.

I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.

I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it ""good"" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.

The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up.",Negative "Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.

To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.

While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.

While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.

This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.

Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.

Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie.",Positive "As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint.",Positive "For my humanities quarter project for school, i chose to do human trafficking. After some research on the internet, i found this DVD and ordered it. I just finished watching it and I am still thinking about it. All I can say is ""Wow"". It is such a compelling story of a 12 year old Vietnamese girl named Holly and an American man named Patric who tries to save her. The ending leaves you breathless, and although it's not a happily-ever-after ending, it is very realistic. It is amazing and I recommend it to anyone! You really connect with Holly and Patric and your heart breaks for her and because of what happens to her. I loved it so much and now I want to know what happens next!",Positive "This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3.",Negative "I was not expecting much from this movie. I was given a ticket for an advanced screening. I had just gotten off of work. It was hot and I was tired. I had to wait in the movie line for 40 minutes and there seemed not to be any cool air flowing through the hallways of the theater complex.

Once seated in the theater, tired and frustrated, the movie started, I did not recognize any of the actors in the beginning, but the flow of the movie was perfect. Right from the beginning I became consumed with the movie, getting more and more excited with each minute passing. I think this movie is destined to be a fantasy/fairytale classic. The actors were fabulous, the pace was perfect, and the ending was magical.",Positive "This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.

A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.

Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!

The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout.",Positive "It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect.",Positive "If there was a ZERO rating, I would give it to this movie. Today was the second time I tried to watch it and I still couldn't make it through from beginning to end. I can't believe the multiple stars given by others & can only assume they either know the actors or are a publicist in disguise! The acting is atrocious all around, the script is blah, the kid playing Nichole shows zero emotion even when she's being threatened. The ""southern"" accent from the actress playing Amber's mom is laughable - I'm from Georgia and have friends from Texas - believe me NOBODY talks like that! None of her emotions seemed real in any scene. The subject matter is very serious and deserves much better treatment.",Negative "If Deborah Messing were not already cast as ""Grace"", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?

Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.

Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.",Negative "This movie is funny and painful at the same time. The ""Cinemagic"" almost gave me a seizure. Despite what they imply, ""Cinemagic"" is not some innovative technical procedure. It was ""developed"" as the result of an accident, and they used it because it disguised the fact that their ""monsters"" were so stupid-looking. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the writer is Sid ""Pink"".

This movie is good for a laugh, if you are really looking for a movie made in 9 days on 200,000 dollars. It is entertaining; at least I can say that about it. The bat/rat/spider is the highlight.",Negative "One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the ""cut-out"" method of animation (a la ""South Park""), the real talent behind ""Twice Upon a Time"" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's ""Rhoda"") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The ""accidental nightmare"" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed.",Positive "What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it ""Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!"" What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! ""I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the ""Chucky"" movie, oh ya , ""The Bride Of Chucky."" It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!!",Negative "It was clear right from the beginning that 9/11 would inspire about as many films as World War II and Vietnam combined; however, there is certainly a big danger that most of these films to come are about as good (or rather: bad) as Pearl Harbor. It is a great luck that the first international release about 9/11 is not a cheesy love story starring a bunch of pretty faces, but a collective work of 11 directors from the entire world.

I'm not intending to say that all 11 episodes are great (Youssef Chahine's, for example, has a needless prologue with too many cuts and Shohei Imamura's has a really bizarre ending) or that the segments are in the right order (Imamura's, being the only one not referring directly to the Twin Towers, should open the film, not end it, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's should be the last one instead, as it's the most impressive one). But it is an impressing effort and an interesting portrayal of the way other parts of the world react to the collapse of the twin towers.

Consider Samira Makhmalbaf's opening segment, in which an Afghan teachers tries to explain to her pupils what happened in New York and unsuccessfully suggests a one-minute silence. Or Idrissa Ouedraogo's part (which features a bin Laden-double so much resembling the real one that you'll be shocked when you see him, I promise), in which 5 boys muse about good things that can be done with the reward put out on Laden.

There's a surprisingly good (and extremely angry) segment by Ken Loach about a man from Chile talking about what he calls ""our Tuesday September 11"" - that September 11 in 1973 when their elected president Allende was killed and Pinochet installed his dictatorship - with the generous help from Henry Kissinger and the CIA. This could have become a terrible effort in Anti-Americanism, but it did become a sad tale and shares my recognition for the best segment with Inarritu's (mainly sound impressions and phone calls from the hijacked planes to a black screen, sometimes a few pictures of people falling down the WTC and finally a collapsing tower, ending with the screen brightening up and one question appearing) and Amos Gitai's about a hysterical reporter trying desperatly to get on air after a car bomb exploded in Tel Aviv (hard to recognize, but this one is a masterpiece of choreography).

All these different segments (I haven't mentioned yet Claude Lelouch's about a deaf girl, Danis Tanovic's about a demonstration of the Women of Srebrenica, Mira Nair's - strange, but it takes an Indian director to make the part that is probably most appealing to Western tastes - about a Muslim family whose son is under a terrible suspicion after 9/11 and Sean Penn's with Ernest Borgnine (yes, Ernest Borgnine) as a widower leading the most depressive life one can imagine) add up to a unique film not easy to watch and hard to forget. I am sure this film will be a classic known to everyone thirty years from now. I hope it will be remembered for starting a long tradition of world cinema movies. But, alas, it's far more probable it will be remembered as a one-film-only effort. And as the one of the few 9/11 movies made by then that don't reduce this terrible event to a love story with a happy end just to please the audience.",Positive "I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.

Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.

All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies.",Negative "amazing movie I saw this movie for the first time on a flight and could not believe that I had not even heard of it before getting on that plane. while it may seem, at first to be a ""chick flick"", it is a film that everyone should see and will enjoy. Men, watch this movie with someone you love. You will enjoy it as much as she does and it will score you big points.",Positive "A sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots ""terrorizing"" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative ""the Phantom"" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV movie.",Negative "Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.",Negative "The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction ""WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE…"" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares… pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.

When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and ""bad sleeper"" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words ""Welcome Home, Eleanor"", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.

Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid…. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.

1/10",Negative "OK Hollywood is not liberal.

Obviously I'm lieing because it is. Im a conservative but the politics i will leave out of my opinion of the movie. This movie was anti bush, anti middle east , anti big oil propaganda but that is not why it was bad.

Fist off i will give credit where credit is due. i saw this film opening night because i happen to like these kinds of films and am a political science major in collage. The cinematography was excellent and the acting was as far as i could tell very good.

The plot was impossible for me to decode however. I have been tested and have an IQ of 138 but no matter how hard i tried there was no way i could piece together the story line of the movie and what characters where doing what.

The story and scene sequence was totally incoherent and poorly organized.

Unless this is one of those movies that is meant to be watch many times to get the full depth pf the story, which it very well may be, i have no idea exactly what was going on.

Which makes sense because if you want to make a political argument and not receive any criticism then make your argument impossible to critique! If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S.",Negative "You know you are in trouble watching a comedy, when the only amusing parts in it are from the Animal cast. It is a pity then that the parrot, Cat & Dog were only in support & not the other way around, as the humans in it were pretty abysmal throughout.

If I were you, Paul, Eva, Lake (what sort of name is that), Jason, & Lindsay, I would forget this acting lark & do something else, as all of you are as funny as watching paint dry, & awful actors to boot.

The main gag in the film is one of the characters shouting, me not Gay, which is funny as if you weren't, you might change your mind if you had to put up with the three bossy, tedious & dare I say very plain women leads in the film.

The worst film I have seen in years, & hopefully never see one as bad again, though I expect not.",Negative "Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character.

Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.

The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!

However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as ""Mildred Pierce"" or ""Imitation of Life""). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter.",Positive "David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.

So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.

This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.

Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.",Negative "Not often have i had the feeling of a movie it could be visionary. But clearly this movie has the seed of a premonition.

We should not tend to be alarmists and see armageddon in something because it seems to fit our emotions of the moment. But, didn't we say this of ""1984"" ? Had James Orwell known the Internet becoming reality not long after 1984; In fact it was in 1994; he might have reconsidered writing his story the way he did. Hindsight rewarded.

It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that we often regard ourselves as superior to our surroundings but indeed become emotional about a ""love apple"" when necessity knocks at our door. A snapshot of ourselves at old age.

Whatever the time-line will prove to be for us, I know for a fact we haven't seen the beginning of it yet.

",Positive "I don't remember ever seeing this one before tonight, probably the title sounded so ordinary it kept passing me by. But it is a well crafted b Western, with an interestingly brooding storyline complimented by acting veering from the good to corny.

Robert Mitchum slopes into wide open town looking for his wife and news of their daughter, and stays for a time as town-tamer. As usual the good business folk have mixed emotions - they want to get rid of the baddies but like the business they bring. It still applies: relax drink and gambling laws and encourage the industries but pretend to deplore the seedy effects it can have on ordinary people. What's fascinating about this film is Mitchum's cynically intense portrayal in going about cleaning the town of baddies, and the townsfolk's acceptance that his violent methods were the only ones. Favourite bit: the sudden demise of 2 of the baddies in the Red Dog saloon. The firing of the main saloon bordered on nasty, but it was an effective way to combat the spread of poison.

Overall a very good film with its only fault tending to be a little hokeyness - not so good for Do-Gooders who would probably prefer a lifetime of negotiation with Evil rather than end it.",Positive "**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on ""lab equipment"" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library music–the movie's high point–later turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey.",Negative Ed Wood is eclipsed and becomes Orson Welles. This film is fantastic. Vampire witches who fight in terribly choreographed scenes and dialog that could have breaking ribs with laughter. Plan 9 From OUterSpace dons't stand a chance against this. Described by the writer and psychic Stephen Armourae on the Vampire Forum as a masterpiece- he's from England and thoroughly sarcastic.

It has Stephanie Beaton and the producers know whats going to save them from bankcrupcy by repeatedly using her. Though she leaves me cold as she looks more like the undead than all the devil raisers. And Eileen Daly is just a lower rate Elvira. The whole thing is badly done.

Watch it for the script though,Negative "Read Eric's review again. He perfectly described my own feeling for this film so more eloquently than I ever could. I'm only writing here to further encourage you to look for and see it.

I saw it many years ago on TV, the IFC I think. It is such a unique film I hesitate to make comparisons. It was filmed in northern Mexico, somewhere in the relentless badlands of Coahuila/Zacatecas/San Luis Potosi. This isn't the Sedona-like Durango,Mexico (of the John Wayne films) but a truly stark and wild place. I have to find the novel now to check on the original location of the story. Like the location, this movie is strange and wild and wonderful and weird and absolutely not for everyone. It is the kind of production that almost motivates me to study film.

I hadn't actually forgotten this movie, it is indelible. Yet, over the years, I had forgotten of its existence. I know nobody who has seen it, had never read of it, nor seen any reference to it. Erendira is such an unusual name, I'd even forgotten the title. Well, I'll be looking to buy a copy now.

**I have since the above posting become a huge fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and so regret not having read him before.

Relative to MsMyth's comment below; the movie was filmed in Mexico but the author is Colombian and was not commenting on Mexico or Mexican history in any way, although Marquez now lives in Mexico for ""political"" reasons. This story is universal.

I am still trying desperately to find a copy of this film for my library. Liked the movie? You have to read the story and then everything else Garcia Marquz wrote. And, by the way, the original location in the story was Colombia.",Positive "This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.",Positive "The story-line was rather interesting, but the characters were rather flat and at times too extreme in their thoughts/behavior. More extreme than necessary. Also, I think something went wrong in the casting. John Turtorro doesn't really satisfy me playing a semi-autistic chess player, not to speak of the Italian player. Motives weren't very much outlined either.

",Positive "The Invisible Ray is an excellent display of both the acting talents of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Karloff pulls off a flawless performance as a sullen and conflicted scientist who appears to put his scientific achievements ahead of his relationships with others, even his wife. His already loner personality becomes unbearable as he becomes paranoid.

Lugosi plays the consummate professional, who is passionate about his work but still finds time to maintain on good terms with everyone, but still seems to have no real close friends. This was one of his few roles as a good guy and he plays it very well. It is hard, however to hear his accent and believe he is French.

The biggest problem with the movie was that it was all based on ""junk science"" but, in a way, even the junk science makes it work well. Since the ideas and theories are completely idiotic, they are as ""relevant"" today as they were when the movie was made. And they are also as forward reaching- and always will be.

This is a perfectly delightful movie to watch again and again. I saw it maybe 5 times this weekend and I could easily sit through it five more times. The acting is marvelous and the science is amusing. I highly recommend it.",Positive "Very good martial arts film and Jet Li is the best since the master himself Bruce Lee .Li is excellent as the low key librarian/cop who saves all time and time again . He has a presence and a look that is riveting and believable as the kung fu king that you don't mess with .Francoise Yip is simply beautiful in that mixed race original way that is unique because of her mixed heritage , she has an innocence and an allure all at the same time that I found unforgettable .The villain , the man with the sunglasses and long hair was very good as well but I can't find his name in the credits , can some one help me out with that ? Thanks ! Enjoy Hak hap or Black Mask , in any language its good entertainment !",Positive "This is possibly the best short crime drama I've ever seen. The acting is superb especially Amanda Burton who's character goes from scary to sweet to disturbing to sad and then some...She does an amazing job balancing Rachels/Carlas feelings and acting out the pain of someone who's lost a child, its so believable that it feels more like a real life story then a drama. The other actors are of course great too which they usually are in British TV/Film. The ending,which I'm not going to give away,is fantastic mainly because you don't really get one... (you'll get what I mean after you've seen it) This is well worth buying and seeing over and over again and if you're not touched by this you're one cold hearted person.",Positive "An MTV-style film crew consisting of American T.V. programme producer Zack Zardine (Matt Borlenghi) his camerawoman, the Australian Cecily (Kate Fisher) and two surfer 'dudes' named Bog Hall (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) arrive on some nice looking island somewhere, it's not actually revealed where. The crew plan to shoot an expose on 'bloodsurfing' which is apparently the latest craze in extreme sports. Surfers throw bait into the sea and cut themselves to attract sharks, just to see if they can out-surf them without being eaten. Once there they are greeted by Sonny Lofranco (Cris Vertido) and his wife Melba (Susan Africa). Their search for the perfect location leads them to the shark infested waters of Lilo-Cay. Sonny, Melba and their daughter Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) take them in their boat. Soon after arriving and having already shot some 'bloodsurfing' footage Sonny, Melba and Lemmya are all killed by a 30 foot saltwater crocodile that some say 'owns' the island. The boat is sunk. Zack, Cecily, Bog and Jeremy appear stuck on the island until such time a rescue party arrives. However, after a run in with some, erm well I don't really know what they are. Pirates? Drug smugglers? Revolutionairies? Fat ugly people who just don't like being with other people? Who knows? And more importantly who cares? Not me that's for sure. Anyway, after escaping from these guys who look like pirates, they are picked up just off the coast of the island by Captain John Dirks (Duncan Regehr) and his girl Arty (Taryn Reif as Tara Reif). The film crew believe they have been saved. Little do they know that the crocodile and Captain Dirks go way back and he has a score to settle and four members of a film crew aren't going to stop him. Captain Dirks heads back to Lilo-Cay for a final showdown with the giant man-eating crocodile.

Directed by James D.R. Hickox this is one awful film, but it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers Crocodile (2000). Everything about this film sucks. The script by Sam Bernard and Robert L.Levy is terrible, extremely slow as the crocodile isn't even seen or mentioned before the 30 minute mark and by that time I was seriously bored and annoyed with the hideously unlikeable characters thought up by Bernard and Levy. The whole film is also frustratingly predictable as well, within the first 10 minutes anyone familiar with horror film stereotypes and stock characters will be able to guess who dies and who will survive. The crocodile effects are awful and seem to be repeated over and over, there is a small puppet head that obviously has someones arm stuck inside it controlling it's movements as the water splashes become huge! The CGI shots of the crocodile are just plain embarrassing to watch. There is no gore apart from when a character is bitten in half which is achieved using CGI to digitally remove the actors legs, again it looks terrible. There is also a brief scene when someone is impaled on wooden spikes when they set a trap off. There is a reasonable amount of nudity and sex, plus the female actresses are nice and easy on the eye. There are basic continuity and logical errors in the film too, in one sequence Cecily is filming Bog and Jeremy 'bloodsurfing' but from the angle and distance she is at it would be physically impossible to obtain footage of both the sharks and surfers at the same time, and surely that is the whole point of her shot? When Dirks manages to harpoon the crocodile the angle of the wire changes dramatically between shots, in one shot the angle of the line looks like it's coming from the sky, in the shot straight after the angle is completely different and it seems as if the line is coming from below the surface of the water when in actual fact the harpoon is attached to the back of the boat and the line should be almost level with the surface. I could carry on, like why does the crocodile jump off the edge of a cliff if it's so smart as this film tries to make out? But I would probably exceed the 1000 word limit if I listed everything that was wrong with this film, so I won't. I hated this film, but rather scarily it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers effort at a giant crocodile film. Definitely one to avoid.",Negative "Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', ""Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!"" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.

The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.

Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.

0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!",Negative "Stewart is a distinguished bachelor and a successful executive who is about to marry his fiancée Janice Rule but instead gets involved with a capricious, sensual art dealer (Kim Novak) who turns out to be a Greenwich Village witch… Novak desires earnestly and intensely to love, but is unable to feel it...

Stewart slowly falls in love with her, and looks for a way to free her from her witch-spell... Novak resents his well-intentioned concern, as does her Siamese cat, Pyewacket... Still, Stewart continues in his attempts to change her into a loving, feeling woman as he aspires to marry her...

Also blocking his way are such talented supporting actors as Novak's brother (Jack Lemmon), a silly, charming sorcerer who can walk nonchalantly through walls; a terrible author who is writing a book about witchcraft; and the Head of the Association of Manhattan Witches, none other than the incredible Hermione Gingold...

Novak's Aunt Queenie (Elsa Lanchester), unlike her other relatives, is a tender witch who accepts that nothing should prevent the course of true love... She aids and stimulates them in turning Novak into the woman of Stewart's dreams, for a happy ending...

If you like to see a lightweight comedy about magic, fantasy and love; beautiful cinematography; stunning use of color; and with an exceptional cast; don't miss this enjoyable and amusing movie…",Positive "This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience.",Positive "What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.",Negative "It's interesting that all who (so far) seemed to like this film had no expectations--I guess that's the trick. In contrast with them, I had optimistic expectations, and that was a mistake. As soon as I saw how close to the faces the camera always was, I knew we were in the hands of an extremely amateur director--that's always a clear sign of them, they think it is arty or effective or intense to hold the camera about two inches away from the actors. The actors in this film, though, had only one facial expression each.

If the close camera wasn't enough, the lack of light in the film killed it. The film seemed to be entirely filmed in the dark. So now we know that the cinematographer was a rank amateur, as well. ""Ooh ooh, we're going to light the set with a flashlight! That will make it all seem intimate!"" No, that made it all seem invisible.

On top of the serious technical flaws, there was absolutely no story beyond the barest hint of an idea that was never developed, and nothing new about this kind of relationship was illuminated. (Perhaps this is a new kind of film for Germany, but in Los Angeles, forget about it.)

The fact that this film won a couple of film festival awards doesn't indicate the quality of the film, but besmirches the quality of these particular festivals. I can assure you that this film won't win anything in the festival where I saw it. In fact, two times during the film it seemed that it was finally over and people started to get up to leave (this was one of the side effects of the cinematographer's ""total darkness"" technique). But when the film shuddered on, instead, there were moans coming from the audience. And once the movie finally DID end, it was clear that it hadn't mattered if it actually had ended at either of the two earlier points. An earlier ending would have saved the audience from yet more monotonous scenes of domesticity (folding sheets, cutting vegetables, spreading honey on bread). Yeah, we get it, the life of the lonely old man was boring-- but we figured that one out at the very beginning.

I recommend that audiences miss this one, it has absolutely nothing to offer sophisticated movie-goers.",Negative "I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go ""What the f*ck did I just see?"" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like ""The Grudge"" or even ""Silent Hill"". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be!",Positive "Soon Americans would swarm over a darkened, damaged England preparing to invade Europe, but in 1937 the picture of hip Americans in the sunny, slightly ridiculous English countryside was an appealing, idyllic diversion. American dancing star & heartthrob Jerry Halliday (Astaire), on a European tour & weary of the screaming female crowds generated by the lurid propaganda of his manager (Burns), is unwittingly caught up in the marriage prospects of frustrated heiress Lady Alice Marshmorton (Fontaine). The tale is complicated by a betting pool among the Marshmorton servants that is run by (and rigged for) head butler Keggs (Gardiner), who's betting on Lady Alice's cousin Reggie (Noble), the favorite of Alice's stuffy, domineering aunt (Collier). The story would have been much better as a half-hour TV episode. The usual Wodehouse plot devices of mistaken identity and jumps to wrong conclusions wear thin in a full-length film. Both Alice & Jerry appear impossibly (and annoyingly) clueless by the second half of the film. The amusement park interlude & the climax in the castle are too long & begin to drag. Fontaine is too beautiful, too dignified & too quiet to be a ditzy blonde, no matter how aristocratic, while young footman Albert (Watson) is painfully awful. But while ""Damsel"" is a pretty diminutive vehicle for so much talent, the talent doesn't let us down. Astaire's romantic comedy skill is no less enjoyable here than in any of his films with Ginger Rogers and his dance scenes, both solo & with Burns & Allen, are up to par, though his one dance with novice hoofer Joan is necessarily tame. Gracie nearly steals the whole show as George's bubbly secretary who is at once airheaded, conniving & coolly self-confident. Her scene with solid character actor Gardiner as the devious snob Keggs is a one-of-a-kind classic. This & Astaire's priceless scene with the madrigal singers give ""Damsel"" a delightful color of naive but noble-spirited Americans mixing with noble but dull-spirited Englishmen. Gershwin is at the top of his game with ""Nice Work if You Can Get it"" & ""Stiff Upper Lip,"" which carry the film through its weak points. And is there another film where madrigals get a Gershwin swing treatment? ""Damsel"" is more than a piece of trivia for those who might want to see Astaire without Rogers or Fontaine before she was a real star. It's a fine diversion as entertaining as any of the vaudevillian musical comedies that ruled the 1930s but will never be made again.",Positive "Having Just ""Welcomed Home"" my 23 YR old daughter from a year in Iraq, Camp Anaconda medical support unit, I felt compelled to get this DVD. I wanted to hear other returning vets feelings in order to attempt to better understand her mentality on arrival and not waiting until after something bad happened. Regardless on your take on the war and peace this movie serves as a great start for all Americans to begin the healing of our returning vets emotional void. The paramount statement of the entire movie is ""Take Action"" on the problem . Incredibly emotional movie. I would highly recommend this movie to the vet the vets entire mature family and ask that they follow through with a plan to listen comfort help the returning Gulf War Enduring Freedom vets.

Fast forward nearly one year later & My daughter has seen this DVD. Took account of her emotions and actually has made a commitment to re-up for another 6 years. Her take on her time spent in the sand is that she did some good. Local Balad children got first rate medical treatment for various common ailments not ordinarily able to afford free with an escort and translator. Her look over her shoulder at her Iraq tour was . ""We changed some hearts and minds back there"" Great DVD you have to keep an open mind and see all sides",Positive "This movie took me by complete surprise. I watched it 2 or 3 times. I really liked this film. There were many truths this movie brought up. I love all the characters in this film as well. This movie makes a lot of sense because as society ""becomes more advance"" What does the culture loose? Not to sound preachy. I can really relate to this movie from my child hood and loosing apart of my life that will never come back or ever been the same. This film is on my top 5 movies I have ever watched. There is just such a raw truth that I feel when I watch the movie and its not the kind of truth that you have to dig for its right in front of your face. The creators of this film did a great job and I enjoyed this movie very much. This movie may not be for every one but if you have an open mind I think you will love it.",Positive "I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.

Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.

It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film.",Positive "Of the elements that make this the best at this point, I have to say #1 is Christine McIntire. Shemp's scene when poisoned and her reaction are truly magnificent. I imagine that, as one poster suggested, Christine was trying to hold back laughter during that scene, but it actually made her seem even more deliciously evil, to be smiling at Shemp's possibly dying.

Another character who helps this stand out is the Goon. His look was a great cross between horrific and comedic goof-ball. Hardly a character I would choose to meet in a dark alley or, for that matter anywhere. I would have preferred a bit of true whodunit mystery in this, but hey, when a short is this good, who's going to complain. Not I.",Positive "Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.

The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral!

As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called ""Velvet Revolution"".",Positive "Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece.",Negative "With this cast and budget you will expect more.

John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.

The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.

Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.",Negative "Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.",Positive "I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10",Positive "A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.

In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.

In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.

New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.

The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love..

A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.

Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)

In my way of thinking I think the title should have been

NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.",Negative """Sky Captain"" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that ""Captain"" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of ""Captain"" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.

One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily ""make sense"". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. ""Captain"" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.

I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing ""types"" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any ""oomph"" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.

The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't.

As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. ""The Last Samurai"" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that ""Captain"" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that ""Sky Captain"" most definitely did not.

I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.",Negative "Sogo Ishii has taken the old myth of Musashibo Benkei and stood it on its head to produce a dark, gory, spellbinding and terrific-looking movie. Those unfamiliar with the legend won't need to be; the story explains itself nicely as it goes along. Well worth seeking out even though there are no English-language home video versions.",Positive "To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2.",Negative "This movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. Among all the stars you couldn't get your kicks from any of the scenes. The movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. The acting is worse than Keanu Reeves, the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college, and the dialogue is the worse I have seen in a movie. The plot also was worse by ten fold. I'd stick to the amateur route. The audio commentary was useless since it's a skin flick but even then that was bad too. Unless your a diehard Jenna Jameson fan there is little here. 4/10",Negative "there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.

boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.

tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.

only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.

Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.

i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.

it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.

on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.

as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.

as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.

negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -

as it is, it's a real hoot.",Negative "Paul Greengrass definitely saved the best Bourne for last! I've heard a lot of people complain about they way he filmed this movie, and some have even compared the camera style to the Blair Witch Project. All I have to say to that is...are you kidding me? Come on it was not that bad at all. I think it helps the action scenes to feel more realistic, which I would prefer over highly stylized stunt choreography. As for the rest of the movie I really didn't even notice it.

You can tell that Damon has really gotten comfortable with the role of Jason Bourne. Sometimes that can be a bad thing, but in this case its a really good thing. He really becomes Jason Bourne in this installment. Damon also has a great supporting cast in Joan Allen, Ezra Kramer, and Julia Stiles. David Strathairn was a great addition to the cast, as he added more depth to the secret CIA organization.

Even though the movie is filled with great car chases and nonstop action, they managed to stick a fair amount of character development in their with all of that going on. This film stands far above the other two Bourne movies, and is definitely one of the best movies of the 2007 summer season!",Positive "Presenting Lily Mars may have provided Judy Garland with one of the easier roles she had while at MGM because Lily Mars is definitely a character she could identify with. A young girl with talent enough for ten, she knows she has what it takes to make it in the theater no matter how much producer Van Heflin from her home town discourages her.

I really liked Judy in this one as the girl determined to make it in the theater. Because it is Judy Garland with the talent of Judy Garland you in the audience know she has the right stuff even if it takes Van Heflin nearly the whole movie to be convinced.

Both Judy and Heflin hail from the same small town, Heflin's dad was the town doctor who delivered her and Heflin while he may have moved away and become a big producer on Broadway, their respective moms, Fay Bainter and Spring Byington have kept in touch. That's her entrée, but Heflin's constantly barraged with stagestruck kids, but never anyone quite like Lily Mars.

No real big song hits came out of Presenting Lily Mars for Garland, though she sings all her numbers. The best in the film is a revival of that gaslight era chestnut, Every Little Movement Has A Meaning All Its Own. Judy sings it with Connie Gilchrist playing the cleaning lady in a Broadway theater where Heflin's show is being produced. Gilchrist was a star back in the days of the FloraDora Girls and she and Judy deliver the song in grand style with Connie. It's the best scene in the film as Gilchrist encourages Judy to keep at it. Composer Karl Hoschna had died a long time ago, but lyricist Otto Harbach was still alive and I'm betting he liked what he heard.

European musical star Marta Eggerth is in Presenting Lily Mars as the show's star who's at first bemused, then angry and finally, understanding of Garland and Heflin. She did a couple of films with MGM and then went back to Europe for more work on the continent. I'm betting MGM didn't quite know what to do with her and her thick Hungarian accent, though Louis B. Mayer never met a soprano he didn't like.

Van Heflin does well as the patient producer who puts up with a lot from Garland and Eggerth. Heflin was just coming off his Oscar for Johnny Eager the previous year and he and Garland wouldn't appear to be an ideal screen team, but they're not bad together.

Presenting Lily Mars is a fine showcase for the talents of Judy Garland. And she didn't have to share the screen in another backstage film with Mickey Rooney.",Positive "I've been intrigued by this film for a while, in part because of the extremely high score here on IMDb -- a 9.0 average with over 300 votes gives it the highest rating of any accessible silent film! How had I not heard of this film before this website? Well, you can't always trust the ratings. This is actually a very good film, preserved quite well if the fine VHS transfer I rented is any indication -- excellent acting by the principals, especially William Haines as Brown, and good location work at Cambridge with some fine action footage in the climactic Harvard/Yale football game -- but the story must have seemed a hoary chestnut even in 1926. Obnoxious, self-centered and charismatic guy goes to school and gets put in his place, becoming in the process a caring, self-sacrificing friend; I doubt people in 1926 found much that was really exciting in the last few reels, the predictability factor is high. Still, it starts out very well, and is certainly deserving of being remembered, if not praised to the heavens. Maybe the previous 350 voters are mostly Harvard men...

EDIT Now 600+ voters and the score has actually climbed to 9.2! Seriously, folks, there is ballot-stuffing going on here - I defy anybody to explain why this is a better film than ""Metropolis"" or ""The General""!",Positive "I recently saw this at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film. This is the feature length directorial debut of veteran Dutch actress Monique van de Ven and based on my observation it should be her last. I hate movies that are so implausible that you are picking apart practically every scene. This film immediately leaves you scratching your head. as it begins a young photographer and his girlfriend who works for an international aid organization are having a leisurely drive through the Taliban-controlled mountains Afghanistan having a conversation about their love when a rocket stops a truck in front of them. They get out of their vehicle to watch as Talliban fighters equipped with rocket launchers, machine guns, rifles, handguns and grenades execute all five people in the truck. Bob (Waldemar Torenstra) starts taking pictures of all this when he is spotted by one of the insurgents who lobs a hand grenade at them that kills his girlfriend. since they are with hand throwing distance they can't be more than 50 yards away yet he somehow gets away. His girlfriend is blown up and he takes a picture of the moment of the grenade impact that kills her and wins a prize as photographer of the year for the photo. Every scene and situation in this film as as ridiculous as it's opening. The following year Bob finds himself on assignment for National Geographic on a Dutch resort island where he meets Kathleen (Sophie Hilbrand) and inserts himself into her seedy underworld of international drug smugglers. Avoid this film. I would give it a 4.0 out of 10.",Negative "Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !!",Positive "This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon).",Positive "This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children.",Positive "I have seen this movie plenty of times and I gotta tell ya, I've enjoyed it every single time. This is Belushi's pinnacle movie in my opinion. Belushi and Lovitz are so likable and identifiable with the common man that you can't help but get involved once you start watching. The movie has a wonderful cast of stars, some already were big, and others were just getting started. It's billed as a feel good movie, and that's exactly what it is. This movie teaches you that life isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes you've just gotta look at stuff in a different perspective to fully appreciate what you already have. When you're done watching, you'll appreciate the things you have a lot more and you'll also be smiling. You can't ask for much more from a movie in my opinion, not to mention it's a hilarious movie and you'll never lose interest. Very Very underrated movie here folks.

Rating from me: 10 I am out!!!",Positive "Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.",Positive "Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.

The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.

As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.

What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.

(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)

But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.",Negative "If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, ""Wizards of the Lost Kingdom"" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.

Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white ""furry"" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).

On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.",Negative "Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's ""made for TV movie"" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.",Negative "This film is a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done.",Negative "I was probably one of the few Australians not watching the tennis when this series aired. I have to say when William McInnes first appeared I though, that is one crappy actor! But as the series continued he toned down his performance and I totally loved him. He was such a rotten guy but he did make me laugh. I watched the show to see Hugo Speers (Heart and Bones, The Full Monty) and Tom Long (SeaChange, Two Hands). It was interesting to see Speers play a nice, quiet man and even more interesting to watch Tom Longs' rippling muscles! Sigh... Seriously, Long's performance was a total shock and really brilliant. He stole the show. Martin Sacks was good also in a small role, and the leading actress put in an entertaining performance. I'd recommend this programme if you enjoy stories with a twist and watching Tom Long walk around with no shirt on...",Positive "Wow. Who ever said that Edward D. Wood Jr. never influenced anybody? This steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point; it makes ""The Violent Years"" look like ""Casablanca""! ""Santa Claus"" also makes Keith Richards' worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. I've had nightmares, you know, waking up and sweating bullets, that will never come close to the visceral terror that Santa Claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. However, I can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. Also, if you're looking for the perfect example of a Santa-Satan dichotomy on VHS tape, look no further. Don't check out this movie, as I've been notified the MST3K version is now available. Move over Satan, here's ""Santa Claus"".",Negative "This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!

6/10",Negative "Though the plot elements to ""The Eighth Day"" seem like they have been done plenty of times, the film still has much of the spark, mystery, and symbolism that Jaco Van Dormal's first film had. Though not as good as ""Toto the Hero"", which will always remain on my favorites list, the movie still leaves us with lots of emotions. Daniel Auteil, from 2001's flavorless ""The Closet"" downplays his part, afraid to overact (rightfully so, the role could have easily been ruined if the actor was overly dramatic). However, I felt the part needed a bit more realism to it, focusing more on the character itself instead of simply the character's growth.

Don't walk into this movie expecting the dark humor and unexpected twists that you got from ""Toto the Hero"" because you will be disappointed. However, the film still serves as a decent, if not flawed, movie",Positive "Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her ""proof"". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.",Negative "Documenting a documenter. That's one way to describe Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. This film follows anthropologist Tobias Schneebaum, who in his late 70s went on a journey back to the places he spent time as a participant field researcher over 40 years ago, first to West Papua and then Peru. Tobias is a full-bodied character: a gay Jewish artist anthropologist who eeks out a living on a cruise ship teaching gawking tourists about the cultures he has come to have a deep respect and understanding for. Author of several books documenting his time with both the Asmat people of West Papua and the cannibalistic Amazonians in Peru, Tobias has been haunted by what happened in his time in these places and how intimate his connection and relationships had become. Yet Tobias' constant wonder and appreciation for the places he got to know is admirable and a real pleasure to watch. One can only hope to ever achieve and retain such humility themselves.

Tobias makes a compelling subject for study as the experiences he faced in immersing himself in these two tribal societies has left him fundamentally changed. This film challenges the notions of morality and ""naturalness""- e.g. nudity, homosexuality, cannibalism. (Watch for the graphic circumcision scene). When questioned as to why he engaged in some of the local practices that others would morally denounce, his non-judgmental nature asks: ""Why Not?"" Who is to say the way of other cultures is right or wrong? This little sleeper is a must watch for not only National Geographic types, but also those interested in the art of documentary making. This film shows what can be done shot on video. The editing provides a quiet revelation of Tobias' life that leaves you watching in fascination. At times, he despairs at being pushed by the film crew to make the emotional journey back, especially considering his age and physical frailty. We can be but grateful that Tobias allowed the tables to be turned on himself, perhaps sympathising with the desire to understand humanity and one's place in the world. The filmmakers provide some moments of critical balance, presenting for example one anthropologist who believes that Tobias predetermined his findings (of homosexuality in this case) based on his personal interests. That said, you can't decide when to stop being shocked and when to take this man home for a cuddle. Move over River Queen, this is the best river ride I've taken in a while.",Positive "I've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called ""That '70s Show,"" I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.

If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than ""The Wonder Years.""",Negative "If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it….",Negative """Magnolia"" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like ""Eyes Wide Shut,"" ""Magnolia"" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked ""Shine"" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?

Having said that, there is nothing held back about ""Magnolia."" Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.

""Magnolia"" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, ""This is stupid!"" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.",Negative "Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso.

But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.

And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth.

To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film.

His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.

When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.

What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.

Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.

Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.

If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso.",Positive "Having just recently re-viewed ""Lipstick"" for the first time in a few decades, I backed it with ""Descent"" even though I have heard more negative comments than good from other film friends with tastes as varied as mine.

It's interesting to contrast how the unique niche of the Rape Revenge movie has evolved in the past 32 years, from the full-on gore of ""I Spit On Your Grave,"" to the tawdry sensationalism of ""Lipstick,"" to the tasteful handling of the issue in ""The Accused."" But ""Descent,"" though making some important points, never really offers us anything truly new in terms of revelatory meaning. No, ""Descent"" is so poorly made in terms of picture and sound quality that it detracts from any significant message it could hope to make --- a message that, when examined closely, isn't that groundbreaking.

I pretty much knew the plot going in. What I wanted to see *was* the ""descent"" or degeneration of Dawson's character. Being a big fan of Rosario's, I was anxious to see the layers being stripped away and her psyche being slowly twisted...you know, the kind of portrayal DeNiro brings to ""Taxi Driver."" Unfortunately, the script and the director/writer's choices don't provide any sort of believable transition.

The biggest point of failure is the second act. It became obvious what the filmmaker's intentions were for this segment of club-hopping, drug use, and obsession with big black stallion Adrian (every white boy's nightmare, natch) from a Q&A on the DVD, but this excursion into Dawson's character is never believably rendered. We don't know exactly what the hell she's doing half the time, what she's after, or why she's doing it. The poor quality of the audio/video again don't help, but the sequence is just too damn long and pointless. It destroys any momentum and investment in the lead character set up during the otherwise exceptionally well-done first act. By the time we get to the finale, our interest has already waned.

One point of success that Dawson does point out in the Q&A is that by the end ""revenge"" scene we are pumped for retribution, then realize just how drawn-out and ugly the reality is. While that's certainly valid, it doesn't make the scene any more intriguing.

If you have the DVD, check out the deleted ""classroom"" scene. This is an excellent 8 minute plus outtake that crackles with energy and provocation (though all verbal) and really DOES show Dawson's slow crack-up materializing as she delightfully vivisects poor Francie Swift's prissy, condescending dorm counselor. If more expository scenes like this had been added and more of the middle third cut down, we might have an interesting psychological study of the impact of senseless acts of violence.

As the film stands in the final cut, though, all we get is what we've seen before, only in a more graphic rendering. So what?",Negative "1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they ""do not"" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French?

2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.

3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.

4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!",Negative "My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....

Saving Grace should have been titled ""A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen."" This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative (""Spirit in the Sky,"" for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous ""buds"" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...",Negative "This movie has a very simple yet clever premise - an unemployed man trying to steal from a convenience store, and the store clerk catches him in the act... the thief runs away with the store-clerk right after him. All the while, the store clerk is in trouble with a low-rank Yakuza chinpira (gangster). Along the chase for the thief, they catch the eye of the Yakuza who's been looking for the convenience store clerk. The story then moves into high gear in the form of a Tom & Jerry (cat & mouse), but is added with the dog chasing after the cat. The entire 2nd act of D.A.N.G.A.N. Runner (can be translate to English as ""PINBALL RUNNERS"") is about the chase, and the chase goes on & on to the point that by the end of the 2nd act, the bum forgets why he is running away, and the Yakuza don't remember which of the 2 guys he is chasing, nor does he remember why they're running away from him.

Similar to SABU's later film POSTMAN BLUES, the bulk of the film is simply all chase and action, with plenty of physical comedy and dark humor injected to keep the audience engaged. What falls short is the ending, to which the chase stops when the three men run out of steam, and into one of the most chaotic Mexican stand-offs you'll see on film that looks almost as if Sabu was paying homage to Tony Scott's TRUE ROMANCE (written by Quentin Tarantino).",Positive "The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.",Negative "There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?",Negative "Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to ""Ordinary People""--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of ""The Natural"". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****",Negative "....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.",Negative "George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.

Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell.",Positive "I recently saw this movie in my International Business class. I was not expecting anything other then another boring documentary (not to say I don't love documentary I've just hard bad luck with movies in that class) Imagine my surprise when this movie, that's actually a movie, came up.

This film is a tell all of cultural differences in the work place and how they need to cooperate to get anywhere. The culture clash shows just how different the world is and just how differently we perceive ourselves until someone comes along and gives us a wake up call. I would highly recommend this film to anyone in business or who just wants a laugh, because yes it is funny.

Well, that's about it! Cheers",Positive "Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.",Negative "This is a very difficult movie, and it's almost impossible to get a handle on what's going on. At first it seems to be a rather pedestrian movie about a guy (Trelkovsky) who needs an apartment and rather crassly invites himself into one when the current tenant (a woman) commits suicide. Then the twists and turns start. Are the neighbors trying to kill him? And why are the dead tenant's clothes turning up in the apartment? One wonders, finally, if Trelkovksy _is_ the prior tenant.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

One of the tricks Polanski pulls on us is to lie to us. We assume when we see things from the point of view of a character that we see things as the character does and that there may be distortions of reality. We assume when the camera is showing us things from its omniscient point of view that we see actuality - but Polanski has the camera lie to us.",Positive "SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.

The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian.",Negative "Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!",Negative "When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.

Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly ""Stonewall"" Jackson in ""Gods and Generals."" Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.

Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.

Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the ""modern era."" That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.",Negative "Wow I loved this movie! It is about normal life in a small village. About hypocrisy and honesty, love and surrender. Great! It is about things everybody encounters in life. You have to do things with passion. But some people will not appreciate your passion and will try to stop you. There are people who find the opinion of others and 'what will the neighbors think' more important than to follow their heart. Don't let anybody's opinion stop you from fulfilling your dreams and passion. I loved the fact that the actors were all really normal people, it could have been my family. No big beauties, but all people you fall in love with during the movie.",Positive "Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers ""I KNEW she had brown roots!"". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.

Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.

I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm",Positive "This film is one of the finest American B-movies of the 90s. If you're looking for a serious film, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for some action, a lot of laughs, and a tongue in cheek variation on cops fighting gangsters, this is well worth watching. Everyone chews the scenery a bit, but that's really what the film is all about, and everyone is quite funny. Donald Sutherland and John Lithgow have great chemistry and need to do another film together.",Positive "There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.

Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on ""Carry On Follow that Camel"" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.

Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.

One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with ""conventional"" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.

We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.

In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.

Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.

By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.

Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is ""trouble"", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.

At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered ""wunderbar"" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.

David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.

Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.

The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting.",Positive "you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean ""face-value"") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not ""bad good,"" either): the reason i'm giving this movie a ""4"" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....",Negative "Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his ""friends"". Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his ""stay"" in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!

This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.

Recommended for Mel Brooks fans.",Positive "This movie ""Joshua"" is extremely disturbing, and downright pointless. It actually makes me shudder to think there are people who would enjoy watching it. Without giving away the story it is about a young boy's reaction to his newborn sister, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. During the entirety of this movie the viewer is subjected to some of the most unsettling child behavior imaginable. Adding insult to injury, by the end of this movie there is absolutely no real outcome except the fruition of pure evil at the hands of a child no less, who outsmarted a whole group of dumb adults. There is no redemption, no justice served, and a whole group of adults who are not smart enough to see what is going on around them. Frankly, I did not enjoy watching this movie. It was extremely unsettling. Even for those who might enjoy horror movies, this movie could be too much. Despite the fact this movie was well acted, the story itself is so disturbing that watching it was equivalent to a 90 minute wait in a dentist's waiting room in anticipation of some painful dental procedure.",Negative "Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in ""Halloween"" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming ""re-imagining"".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10",Positive "One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!

Absolutely awful.",Negative "I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys",Negative "This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.

Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.

What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid.",Negative "It's here. finally a movie comes out that I can honestly say is worse than Larry the cable guy: health inspector. Yet I'm willing to bet the the wayan's brothers(hilarious) will make more money than I ever make in my whole life on what is sure to be one of the top five worst films of all time, outside of my fifth grade outside the class re-enactment of romeo and Juliet. I mean really WHY would anyone ever ever see this movie unless they were paid to. The comedy is weak and all even remotely funny jokes from the flimsy plot were surely revealed in commercials. Final word is this movie was a terrible letdown for me. And the commercials looked so promising...",Negative "Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, ""charmingly screwball"" comes off as, ""disturbingly demented."" Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.

Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.",Negative "I saw this movie at a drive-in in 1959. Until ""Howard the Duck"" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired ""My Mother, The Car."" Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.",Negative "I'll give credit where credit is due, and say that Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as a hard-drinking actress who does what she wants. She's brash, sassy, hard-edged, and very sexy; she is much better than this film deserves.

But that is IT. This dull suspense film is a fragmented mess, attempting at once to be a stalker thriller, a murder thriller, a tale of loyalty and betrayal, and a steamy erotic thriller. The film, my friends, isn't thrilling in the slightest.

For instance, who thought of casting C. Thomas Howell as a desirable leading man? He is not ugly, but for crying out loud, it looks as though Fiorentino's tough-cookie goddess is getting it on with a kindergarten teacher. Howell has neither the authority or screen presence to fill the leading man role.

The script is by far the worst aspect of the film. There is no tension as Fiorentino's character gets eerie phone calls, there is no mystery concerning her guilt in the murders that are the focus of the film, there is no sense of liberation as Fiorentino gets wimpy Howell to lose his inhibitions.

Look for interesting but poorly-done cameos by Adam Ant and Issac Hayes, and one really, really good sex scene between Howell and Fiorentino. Besides that, my first impulse would be to put this sorry piece of trash down and go rent something else.",Negative "Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all.",Negative "Part of what was so great about the classic Looney Tunes cartoons was their irreverence and how they weren't afraid to do anything that they wanted. In this case, Marvin the Martian has an assignment to bring back an earthling. Sure enough, he comes across Bugs Bunny, who warns of a mutiny on the part of Marvin's dog. After Marvin finally traps Bugs - by means of an Acme strait jacket-ejecting bazooka! - Bugs has more stuff planned for the voyage back to Mars. What I mean is, if you thought that it was a major change in the Solar System when they stripped Pluto of its planet status, then you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, ""The Hasty Hare"" goes all out. How they buy Acme products in outer space is probably beyond most people, but the point here - I mean ""hare"" - is to have fun. And believe me, you definitely will. After all, a little space-out never hurt anyone.",Positive "Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.

Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.

I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-",Negative "Entertaining musical where Nathan Detroit needs $1,000.00 to get up a floating crap game so he entices Sky Masterson to try and get salvation army girl, played by Jean Simmons, to go with Masterson to Havana.

5 years later, Simmons would be in the missionary again in the fabulous ""Elmer Gantry."" There she was sister Sharon and here she is Sister Sarah. Same temperament, different story.

Frank Sinatra is that devilish Nathan Detroit. He has been engaged to Vivian Blaine for 14 years and she loathes his gambling habit.

In a real change of pace, Sky Masterson was played by Marlon Brando who actually did his own singing here!

The film is saved by superlative choreography. Those dance and singing routines are fabulous. They are especially realized by Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely (Johnson).

All in all, it's a very nice production.",Positive "This film was Excellent, I thought that the original one was quiet mediocre. This one however got all the ingredients, a factory 1970 Hemi Challenger with 4 speed transmission that really shows that Mother Mopar knew how to build the best muscle cars! I was in Chrysler heaven every time Kowalski floored that big block Hemi, and he sure did that a lot :)",Positive "Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.",Negative "I was raised watching the original Batman Animated Series, and am an avid Batman graphic novel collector. With a comic book hero as iconic as Batman, there are certain traits that cannot be changed. Creative liberties are all well and good, but when it completely changes the character, then it is too far. I purchased one of the seasons of ""The Batman"" in the hopes that an extra bonus feature could shed some light on the creators' reasoning for making this show such an atrocity. In an interview on the making of ""The Batman,"" one of the artists or writers (I'm unsure which) said that ""We felt we shouldn't mess with Batman, but we could mess with the villains."" So, they proceeded to make the Joker into an immature little kid begging for attention, the Penguin into some anime knockoff, Mr. Freeze into a super-powered jewel thief, Poison Ivy into a teenage hippie, and countless other shameful acts which are making Bob Kane roll over in his grave.

To sum it all up: I wish I had more hands so I could give this show FOUR THUMBS DOWN. It squeezes by my rating with a 2 out of 10 simply because it uses the Batman name. Warner Bros...rethink this! Please!",Negative "H.G. Wells story the shape of things to come was made into a movie in 1935.very well made science fiction tale about a war that lasts for decades.great cast includes;Raymond Massey(arsenic and old lace) Sir Cedric Hardwick(ghost of Frankenstein)Ralph Richardson(time bandits) and Margaretta Scott.early glimpses of helicopters,holograms,a rocket ship,and futuristic cities.this film was ahead of its time.directed by William Cameron Menzies(invaders from mars)its very enjoyable much like the earlier movie metropolis(1927)but avoid the so called sequel the shape of things to come,that was made in 1979. this movie has nothing to do with the original.h.g. wells like Jules Verne had a vision for the future with his stories.a classic science fiction movie.10 out of 10",Positive "Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...

After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.

I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A ""don't know how to do"" sex-in-the-city.

Don't waste your time or money.",Negative "In this grim melodrama, Barbara Stanwyck plays the eldest of three wealthy sisters who become orphans when their father dies in France. Threatened with the danger of losing the opulent family home, Big Sister makes a grand sacrifice and secretly marries a real estate developer so she can inherit her... aunt's fortune. A few years later, she learns that he is after the family estate and wants to tear it down so she leaves him and tries to stop him. More time passes and the husband ends up taking her to court when he learns that she has borne him a son without telling him. The part of ""Gig Young"" was played by actor Byron Barr who later assumed the name before he became famous.

Anyone interested in purchasing a copy let me know by writing to me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com",Positive "I did not see this film in the theater. I confess to an anti-Vinnie Barbarino bias. Who the hell was John Travolta to be making movies? I remember the Oscar broadcast that year, with Travolta looking absolutely devastated when he didn't win. How dare he, when there were ""real"" actors in the running? I'm sorry John, you should have won. After catching this film on cable years ago, I fell in love with the entire movie. Bud, Sissy, Uncle Bob, Wes, all wonderfully done. I, also, confess to never passing it by when I channel surf. I HAVE to stop and watch. Over the years, I've learned to do most of the dialogue, dance with my thumbs in my waistband, and learned to appreciate Travolta more. The only disappointing thing to me was the oversight, on the soundtrack, of some of the music from Urban Cowboy. ""Looking for love"" defines the film, but Urban Cowboy was chock full of classics that DIDN'T make it to the soundtrack. It should have been a double CD........",Positive "Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the ""scary"" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called ""humor"". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.

The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.

What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?",Negative "Another one of those films you hear about from friends (...or read about on IMDb). Not many false notes in this one. I could see just about everything here actually happening to a young girl fleeing from a dead-end home town in Tennessee to Florida, with all her worldly possessions in an old beaten-up car.

The heroine, Ruby, makes some false starts, but learns from them. I found myself wondering why, why didn't she lean a bit more on Mike's shoulder, but...she has her reasons, as it turns out.

Just a fine film. The only thing I don't much like about it, I think, is the title.",Positive "From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.",Negative "In my knowledge, Largo winch was a famous Belgium comics (never read) telling the adventures of a playboy, a sort of James Bond without the spy life! So, when I had to choose a movie for a 5 years-old kid, I picked it up because the kid was already a great fan of James Bond!

But, just after the opening credits, I got heavy doubts: when American movies offer amazing start, here, no action and a torrid sex scene … Then, the story get very complicated with financial moves… I thought I lost the kid.

But, strangely, he had been caught by Largo, and more than James Bond!

Was it the excellent interpretation of Tomer Sisley? The difficult relationship Largo has with his father? The multiple box story in which the friends are the bad guys, the bad guys are the friends? The exotic locations of Honk-Kong, Yougoslavia?

Dunno, but he really cares about Largo (""Will he get up?) and we enjoyed our moment.",Negative The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.,Positive "By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR",Positive "First of all I need to say that I'm Portuguese and it's not usual to me spend my time watching Portuguese movies, probably one each year or even none...

...And the reason is the almost generalized idea between the Portuguese people that the national pictures are awful, really close to the worst ever made! However, in the last decade, it starts to surprises me when we get back the funny of the 40s when ""Leão da Estrela"" e ""Costa do Castelo"" were among the worlds best of their time, with movies like ""Pulsação Zero"" or ""Sorte Nula"", both from director Fernando Fragata and also with some actors and music in common.

This one is also good, not of the same kind because it isn't a true comedy; in fact it's officially a drama, a woman's drama the has some unexpected funny parts, cause of humorous characters or hilarious things that happen to them, like the hypothetical travel to the Caribbean just to get laid.

The plot works and can surprise us a few times; the actors are fine, the locations regular as the score; but the truth is that it all make sense, then we can count it as a nice effort for the national cinema, that seems to be starting from the ashes as the phoenix.

If you want to watch a Portuguese movie, surely you can take better option, but it stills one to be measured.",Positive "This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man ""with an agenda."" He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo!",Positive "Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters.

People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.

To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort.

Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, ""Umbrellas"") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.",Negative "You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic.

Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor ""Little Nikki"" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every ""Air Band"" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson.

We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers.

It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight.",Positive "Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a

50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?",Negative "I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.",Negative "Actress Patty Duke wrote an insightful, funny, rough-hewn book about her career as an actress, her crazy-quilt love-life, and her manic depressive episodes and suicide attempts which almost put her away for good. With this rich material to draw from (and Patty playing herself in the final act), one would think a crack TV-director like Gilbert Cates could bring it all together on film, but ""Call Me Anna"" is a pale shadow of Duke's autobiography. For those who haven't read the book, the sketchy narrative (leaping forward in time) isn't absorbing, we are never allowed to get our bearings with what's happening, and the production seems stunted by a low budget. The actors are miscast, and the value of having Duke herself finally appear does not pay off--the film's phony reality is so thick at this point that Patty can't bring stability to the scenario. It appears as if the producers were sincere enough (and consciousness-minded) to anxiously steer the film towards Duke's ultimate diagnosis and mental freedom, but they left out many dramatic opportunities in the process.",Negative "HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.

Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job.

---SPOILERS---

Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*

The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5.",Positive "It surprises me how much I love this movie despite the fact that I don't really like dogs. Fox, Field, and Ameche do a wonderful job with the voices of Chance, Sassy and Shadow, and the acting by the animals themselves is just amazing.

I have seen this movie 72 times already (I know that sounds scary, but it's true!), and every time the ending scenes still get me. I highly recommend it to people of all ages and especially to animal lovers. It is indeed my all-time favorite movie!",Positive "I saw this independent film when it was in Philadelphia and it was a pleasant surprise. I left the theater with a smile on my face. One of the things that made it so funny was that it was based on a true story -hilarious! It has some great character actors in it too. Mindy Sterling is in it and is very good. I loved her in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is also terrific. I remember him from Head of the Class. I am tired of all the dark edgy movies that keep getting made. This is fun and light, and I can watch it with my family and not be embarrassed. I keep checking to see when it will come out on DVD. I will definitely buy it.",Positive "A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10.",Positive Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden,Positive "This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.

The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas.",Positive "I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)

The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).

The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.

I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!

",Positive "This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in ""Glen or Glenda?""

The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable ""Russian"" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.

If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.

Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.",Negative "I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!",Negative "Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?

Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.

Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)

Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.

Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.

then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.

Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.

Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.

Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.

Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say ""weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills"".

Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)

Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.

Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.

Superwonderscope says : 1

",Negative "An excellent movie about two cops loving the same woman. One of the cop (Périer) killed her, but all the evidences seems to incriminate the other (Montand). The unlucky Montand doesnt know who is the other lover that could have killed her, and Périer doesnt know either that Montand had an affair with the girl. Montand must absolutely find the killer...and what a great ending! Highly recommended.",Positive "If you like films about school bullies, brave children, hilarious toddlers and worm eating, then How to Eat Fried Worms will appeal to you.

The film is about a boy named Billy, who when arriving on his first day at a new school, discovers that some of his classmates have played a prank on him by putting worms into his lunch. The school bully, Joe and his ""team"" of friends start teasing Billy and calling him ""worm boy"".

Billy decides to play along by saying that ""he eats worms all the time"". Joe and his friends don't believe him but Billy assures them and bets Joe that he can eat ten worms in one day otherwise he will come to school with worms in his pants.

The boys take Billy up on his bet, leaving the weak stomached child with a mission to gain respect from his classmates by eating worms cooked, fried, or alive.

The film may sound gross but there are a lot of messages in it. For one, it portrays true friendship and how to accept people for who they are. It also shows you why some bullies resort to bullying other children.

The film's protagonist, Billy is a strong minded and brave person who all of us can relate to. It is easy to empathize with him as we silently cheer for him to reach his goal, even though we might not always agree with what he's doing or the choices he makes.

The children in the film are portrayed exactly how children are in real life and the film deserves a lot of credit for that. The child actors are the stars of this show, showing true emotion and feeling than most other children's movies portray.

Some adults may not enjoy this film but kids will, perhaps even teenagers.

There are hardly any other good movies on circuit at the moment, so if you're not in the mood to see snakes on a plane, try worms on a plate in How to Eat Fried Worms. It is a feel good fun film and not just Fear Factor for kids.",Positive "It's a bad movie, it seems like there is only 5 police in HK, they were not using there gun and this makes me feel like a Jacky Chan's movie. All the time they were using their gun to point at the suspect only. When they finally use their gun is when they kill each other, what a funny movie. In The movie, it's like all the good guys died without a reason.

They story line of the movie also sucks, the story jump here and there and bored people. But if you wanted to see a bloody movie, I think this is only a OK type of movie, I think U.S. made zombie movie is more bloodier than this one",Negative "Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? ""An Unexpected Love"" - ooh, how provocative!! ""This Much I know"" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who ""turns"" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?",Negative "The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart.",Positive "I saw ""Rachel's Attic,"" thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a ""3,"" is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and ""Rachel's Attic"" isn't one of them.",Negative "This is a great British film. A cleverly observed script with many quotable lines, which captures perfectly what magic mushrooms can do to a man over a weekend. As per usual Phil Daniels is excellent along with that most under rated of British actors Geoff Bell. Peter Bowles with a joint hanging out of his mouth is a casting masterstroke and Gary Stretch with his brooding looks brings something strangely atmospheric to the piece. Although it seems to be billed as a biker movie, i think it will find an audience outside of this, purely on the premise that a lot of people have been there done it and got the t-shirt. also A great original soundtrack with a blinding version of Freebird. This really could be a 21st century heir to the famous Ealing comedies. Like the weed in the Welsh fields: it's a grower!",Positive "Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...

Still a good 7/10 for me.",Positive "

Presenting Lily Mars is one of a genre of film that sadly seems to have disappeared with the studio system. Ok now that you know my bias, here are some reasons I think this movie does stand out.

1. Although the basic plot - Lily Mars (Judy Garland) goes to New York, becomes a star, and wins the heart of her director (Van Heflin) is a pretty stock Hollywood story of the period, the writers do vary the theme her a bit more than usual. Although Lily gets her big break when the star quits, she isn't successful and has to swallow her pride and go back to playing a minor role in the show.

2. Judy Garland (enough said!)

3. The supporting cast includes some really great performances. Spring Byington as Lily's mother is truely wonderful, as is Fay Bainter (the mother of the director - John Thornway (Van Heflin)). The standout supporting performance though goes to character actress Connie Gilchrist as Frankie, a one time actress turned theater custodian.

Worth a watch for sure. One of those movies that are designed to make you feel better about the world and your dreams.",Positive """Death Lends A Hand"" is one of the pivotal early episodes of ""Columbo"" that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.

In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.

There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the ""lifeline going over the mound of the moon"", or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.

Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.

And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).

I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved...

A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like ""Double Exposure"" too, also featuring Robert Culp.",Positive "I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.

With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.

I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.

The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.

The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.

The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.

It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.

The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.",Negative "I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.

Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.

I should have known better.

This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.

While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.

Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.

The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.",Negative "I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.",Negative "This film could be one of the most underrated film of Bollywood history.This 1994 blockbuster had all of it good performances,music and direction.I remember I was in Allahabad when this movie was running and it was somewhere in March at Holi time , the people there were playing its song ""Ooe Amma"" at their loudspeakers in highest volume. If someone who likes to watch Some Like It Hot and drools over Marilyn Monroe he should see this movie.Thumbs Up to Govinda.How many of you know that this film was shot in South of India and after Sholay could be one of the very few blockbuter to hit Silver Screen.With films like these Indian comedy could never be dead.",Positive "Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.

McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume.

Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.

The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation.

This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.

Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey.",Negative "As I said in my comment about the first part: These two movies are better than most Science Fiction Fans confess.

The scenario in the second movie is not that moving as we don't see the destruction of human civilization, but the aftermath, thousands of refugees fleeing in tiny space cans, protected by only one powerful spaceship.

But when Battlestar Pegasus appears, the story heats up, carrying the battle back to the Cylon Planets. Okay, it has a little bit of Mad Max because all they fight for is fuel for their spaceships to travel on to find the distant Earth, but it works for me. It is thrilling Science Fiction entertainment featuring fine actors and decent special effects (even though those tend to repeat themselves, to say the least :-) ).

I would have loved a continuation with Starbuck and Apollo on board. Instead, we got a second sequel with no name characters who proved that the story had worked before especially because the feature characters were so well-chosen...

So thumbs down for the productions of 1980, but thumbs up for the two movies from 1978.",Positive "This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, ""Hollywood North"" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, ""Flight to Bogota"" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, ""Hollywood North"" is a great place to start.",Positive "I love this movie. It is great film that combines English and Indian cultures with feminist-type issues, such as girls wanting to play sports that were previously reserved for men. It shows the struggles of both an Indian person wanting to break outside her cultural barriers and women wanting to break outside the gender restrictions found in sports, especially in England at the time. I feel that the cultural struggles are more emphasized than the other issues.

In contrast to the other comment, I do not think this movie is anything like Dirty Dancing or any other such chick flick. This move is loved by many types of people, men and women, young and old alike.",Positive "I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, ""Oh, HERE comes the good part"" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.",Negative "I've seen this film literally over 100 times...it's absolutely jam-packed with entertainment!!! Powers Boothe gives a stellar performance. As a fan of actors such as William Shatner (Impulse, 1974) and Ron Liebmann (Up The Academy, 1981)I never thought an actor could capture the ""intensity"" like Shatner and Liebmann in those roles, until I saw Boothe as Jim Jones! As far as I'm concerned, Powers Boothe IS Jim Jones...this film captures his best performance!!!",Positive "Jack Frost is about a serial killer who is sentenced to death. On the Way to his death sentence the prison truck that he rides in collides with a chemical tanker filled with a chemical that turns his molecules with the snow on the ground turning him into a snowman. Being a killer himself that would turn him into a killer snowman. Jack now wants revenge on the sheriff who caught him. Jack now starts his rampage all over again killing people in a small town.

I don't think Jack Frost has a chance of becoming a horror classic but its a entertaining flick. Just put your brain on hold and have fun with it, but just don't take it too seriously.",Positive "Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless.

In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate.

Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie.

There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once.

Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on.

Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and ""somewhat"" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it.

(On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.)",Negative "Maybe some people may consider this a slow movie. However, it's precisely this ""slow burning"" that allows it to profoundly affect the viewer. Like that marvelous first scene: first, we can hear the voices; then, we are allowed to see the characters; finally, the camera slowly pans back and to the side and we see another character, a young man who is just sitting there, apparently not even listening to the conversation or, at least, not really caring. The fact that this young man will be the leading role shows the movie's strategy: allowing the character to develop and be determined by the environment surrounding him but without remarking the points more than necessary. People come and go, flow in and out of his life. Although most of the movie follows him (and most of the supporting characters are only seen when close to him, defined according to the relationship maintained with him), we are induced to believe that we are being objective, so subtle is the director touch.",Positive "The bad news is it's still really dreadful. I gave it a 2 because occasionally some of this kitchy slapstick parody actually seems funny.

It's supposed to be better than ""Mulva, Zombie Ass Kicker"", and progress should be rewarded. Or maybe I was drinking heavily when I watched it and felt generous. Whatever, ""2"" it is.

Maybe the best thing about this movie is that it's over pretty quick. It takes elements from most of Kill Bill I & II's key themes and fight scenes, hacks them up, dumbs them way down, dirties up the dialog, and squishes the whole mess into about an hour of truly awful amateur video.

You'd best smoke a lot of something powerful if you want to enjoy this one. And get this DVD back to the video store on time! You'll really hate yourself if you have to pay a late fee.",Negative "First off, the movie was not true to facts at all. I just saw the documentary a few days earlier and the movie wasn't anything like it. First of all Nash was a genius at mathematics and this is what the movie should have been about not a story about a man who was cured and who found love at the end and so on. Also there are a lot of scenes that were just plain wrong - the scene where he rode around with a bike at the campus happened in his early university years not after it. In my opinion Russell Crowe didn't fit to this part at all since he doesn't look the intelligent/individualist type, therefore he really couldn't play one. It would have been great if it would have focused more on the mathematics (similar to Pi) and not the over-dramatized lovelife. At this level ABM was too hollywood-ish and too superficial to be great. Personally I think he wasn't mad nor paranoid and he was onto something since people of that caliber tend to know more than we ""lesser mortals"". 5/10",Negative "Stephen King was raised on flicks like this. -Flicks NOT films.

Movies like this and 'Jeepers Creepers' are ""throwbacks"" to the good 'ol day drive-in horror flicks. They are meant to be fun, cheaply made and hopefully: a few good scares.

Anyone looking for a theory on the human condition should pass on this creature feature because that's all this is... all it ever will be.

Stop trashing what has already deemed itself as trash. -Good, fun, trash!

If you enjoyed this I recommend: 'Jeepers Creepers' 'Jeepers Creepers 2' '30 Days of Night' 'Scarecrows'('88) 'They Live' 'Planet Terror' 'Death Proof' and 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch'",Positive "This film is so bad - dialogues, story, actors and actresses - everything! - that it's hard to imagine that we'll see a worse movie this year or in the following years. ""Love's Brother"" (set in Australia among Italian immigrants) has nothing but shallow clichés about Italian culture to offer, and it is quite telling that even the Italians from and in Italy speak ENGLISH in the film. The message of the film - ugly people have to marry ugly people, beautiful people have to marry beautiful people - is truly discomforting. Giovanni Ribisi is quite good in films like 'Suburbia' or 'Lost in Translation', but here his pseudo-Italian accent is hard to bear. See this film at your own risk. Trash as trash can!",Negative "Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.

M. Pitts",Positive "I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still ""saving the world"". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird ""creatures"" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the ""manticores"". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!",Positive Allison Dean's performance is what stands out in my mind watching this film. She balances out the melancholy tone of the film with an iridescent energy. I would like to see more of her.,Positive "Mere thoughts of ""Going Overboard"" (aka ""Babes Ahoy"") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed ""so bad it's good"" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...",Negative "The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the ""Thunderbirds"" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.",Negative "This is the definitive movie version of Hamlet. Branagh cuts nothing, but there are no wasted moments.",Positive "This is still the benchmark to judge all Golden Age whodunnits by, and taking into account the limited technology and dubious ethical standards of the authorities (on screen) bears up well against all generations of similar attempts since on film and TV. Fast and furious with plenty of Warner Bros wipes, and thankfully no time for a love interest it gallops along, taking the splendid cast with it to the violent end. I never understood why the DA had to trail Vance around everywhere, I always thought they were deskbound. Palette as the detective but especially Girardot as the doctor are delightfully eccentric and un-PC - when glancing over the second murder victim he sniffs that there were too many people in the world anyway. Of course it is William Powell as Philo Vance (and Michael Curtiz as director) that makes the film what it is - when did Powell ever make a dud?

The army of cops at the crime scene didn't really do a very good job in finding the second dead body and unconscious dog did they! The best bit is where Vance narrates to us all the sequence of events surrounding the murders - dodgy model sets combine with fantastic roving camera angles to produce a very modern feel, and startling with what has gone before. The only problem is as usual the conclusion can't match the overall deductive processes displayed throughout and a somewhat contrived ending is invoked; some Chan's, Moto's and many others of course could only be concluded this way too. But because it happens so fast and is ... slightly dubious morally it doesn't lessen my opinion of KMC's status as a classic!

All the prints I've ever seen of KMC are (at worst) like looking into a goldfish bowl, so if you're interested in seeing it bear with it until you're sucked in.",Positive "Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.

The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.

The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!",Positive "If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!",Negative "I liked this show! I think it was nothing with wrong with it! Only that Spidey don't punch anyone but only for that the show doesn't suck! Some people only think this show is bad because of that. The story was great and it was fun when other heroes appeared like X-men, The Punisher, Daredevil and Iron Man! To bad Sandman never appear but i kinda like it! Best Spidey show ever!! My favorite episodes are: 1. Turning Point 2. Spider Wars 3. The Hobgoblin 4. The Alien Costume 5. Mutant Agenda

But there are some episodes that was really really bad like: Rocket Racer and The Spot which was embarrassing to watch. And i don't like Morbius and Hydro Man. First of Morbius suck plasma instead of blood and i don't like vampires. And it irritates me that he was almost the main villain in Season 2. Of course i have to mentioned Hydro Man! He was terrible! I rather see Sandman! His last appearance was so terrible. And i don't like Spidey as the Man-spider!

But i guess everything than this was bad!",Negative "It started out slow after an excellent animated intro, as the director had a bunch of characters and school setting to develop. Once the bet is on, though, the movie picks up the pace as it's a race against time to see if a certain number of worms can be eaten by 7 pm. We had a good opportunity on the way home to discuss some things with our son: bullies, helping others, mind over matter when you don't want to do something.

Of special note is the girl who played Erica (Erk): Hallie Kate Eisenberg. The director kinda sneaks her in unexpectedly, and when she is on-screen she is captivating. She's one of those ""Hey, she looks familiar"" faces, and then I remembered that she was the little girl that Pepsi featured about 8 years ago. She was also in ""Paulie"", that movie about the parrot who tries to find his way home.

Ms. Eisenberg made many TV and movie appearances in '99-00, but then was not seen much for the next few years. She's now 14 and is growing up to be a beautiful woman. Her smile really warms up the screen. If she can get some more good roles she could have as good a career (or better?) than Haley Joel Osment, another three named kid actor, but hopefully without some of the problems that Osment has been in lately.

Anywhozitz, according to my 8 y.o. son, who just finished reading the story, the film did not seem to follow the book all that well, but was entertaining none the less. The ending of the film seemed like a big setup for some sequels (How to Eat Boiled Slugs? Escargot Kid's Style?), which might not be such a bad thing. It was nice to take the family to a movie and not have to worry about language, violence or sex scenes.

One other good aspect of the movie was the respect/fear engendered by the principal Mr. Burdock (Boilerplate). Movies nowadays tend to show adult authority figures as buffoons. While he has one particular goofy scene, he ruled the school with a firm hand. It was also nice to see Andrea Martin getting some work.",Positive "Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir.",Positive "Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.

This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.",Negative "On a distant planet a psychopath is saved from execution by a space monk. He releases a few fellow inmates and breaks out of the prison in a spaceship. They dock onto a ludicrously enormous spacecraft that is orbiting a supernova star. This massive craft is populated by only three people, presumably because the budget of the film did not extend to hiring many actors. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the three goodies end up in a game of cat and mouse with the baddies.

The psychopath in this movie is curious in that he is annoying. 'Annoying' is generally not a term one would use to describe a lunatic - unhinged, frightening, dangerous maybe but not 'annoying' but he is. The three people manning the giant ship are seriously unconvincing as warranting such important roles - this ship is practically the size of a city! Considering that the film is set approximately 50 years in the future, it is somewhat optimistic that such a huge man-made craft could exist, never mind the fact that it is used for such a relatively mundane task. Despite the vast size of the spaceship, the crew all have appallingly kitted out, tiny rooms and the dining room consists of what appears to be a plastic table and chairs. But there are a lot of corridors.

The film is fairly well acted and it works as an averagey sci-fi thriller. But nothing great.",Negative "A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details.",Positive """Kids Like These"" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent ""Le Huitième Jour"", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In ""Kids Like These"" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 1/10",Negative "Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!",Negative "Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.

What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false.

Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say ""Shonuff!""",Negative "OK, so the musical pieces were poorly written and generally poorly sung (though Walken and Marner, particularly Walken, sounded pretty good). And so they shattered the fourth wall at the end by having the king and his nobles sing about the ""battle"" with the ogre, and praise the efforts of Puss in Boots when they by rights shouldn't have even known about it.

Who cares? It's Christopher Freakin' Walken, doing a movie based on a fairy tale, and he sings and dances. His acting style fits the role very well as the devious, mischievous Puss who seems to get his master into deeper and deeper trouble but in fact has a plan he's thought about seven or eight moves in advance. And if you've ever seen Walken in any of his villainous roles, you *know* the ogre bit the dust HARD at the end when Walken got him into his trap.

A fun film, and a must-see for anyone who enjoys the unique style of Christopher Walken.",Positive "This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.",Negative "Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the ""film""! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.

It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?

As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish ""slap in the face"" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead ""actress"" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.",Negative "WOW! Why would anybody make a sequel to an already rancid film? Half Past Dead was a bad movie but at least at had an idea of what it wanted to be. HPD2 has no clue of what it wants to be. It just exists on screen for reasons I cant explain. Spoiler: The whole movie is this: Twitch(played by Kurupt of Tha Dogg Pound) gets transferred to another jail where there might be a box filled with gold bricks buried. In the jail, a riot breaks out between rival inmates, one of them gets shot by a guy named Cortez and Cortez plans his escape. During a conjugal visit, Twitch's fiancée and Burke's(played by Bill Goldberg)daughter get kidnapped by Cortez and are held in an execution room. Burke reluctantly befriends Twitch and they end up getting into trouble with the idiotic inmates while finding out that Cortez has their loved ones.

Opinion: This is the most unnecessary sequel since Universal Soldier: The Return. The script is terrible, the acting is horrendous, the dialog is a joke and everybody in this movie is a caricature. Look, I know it was low budget film but that is not an excuse for these guys to not put effort into what they do. Nobody in this ""movie"" believes in the characters they play. Nobody in this ""movie can be taken seriously as an actor. Kurupt should be ashamed of himself. His character ""Twitch"" is pretty much a spineless minstrel puppet who spends most of his time posing while getting jacked up by Burke or the other inmates. Bill Goldberg spends most of his time sulking throughout the movie as if he had to take a PHD(pretty huge dump). The fight scenes are poorly choreographed and pathetic and for an action movie HPD2 is pretty boring even when action is happening! Don't let anybody tell you that this movie is somewhat decent. It stinks and is a prime reason why people despise Follywood.",Negative "Whoa nelly! I've heard a ton of mixed reviews for this...but one of my go to hardcore horror reviewers really found it to be disappointing. Man was he right on the nose! This movie was acted by pure amateurs. They HAD to have done one take, maybe two on each scene, the movie seemed soooo rushed. The script was also poor....they had lines that tried to be unique but failed. Miserably. ""Get your meathooks off of me!"" Oh man, I hate it when movies try to do that. It happens all the time with comedies...but, with a horror movie and with below average actors....the results are incredibly pathetic. The lines and scenarios were all very predictable. But what made me feel so negative towards this movie was, again, the damn acting. It was awful. Besides by the little Asian guy who worked the booth. I thought he was great.

The movie is about 5 stupid dumbsh!t tourist who are on a vacation in Asia. They end up at the wrong place and fall into the hands of a mafia run sex/slaughterhouse. Sounds like a cool story. But watching someone with a bad case of diarrhea is probably more fun and intense to watch. The only reason this is considered horror is because of the killing. There wasn't a trace of suspense.

I like many other horror fans were dying to get their bloody little mitts on this. But unfortunately with a HUGE capital U, the movie was incredibly disappointing. I did enjoy the ankle break and the blood effects. The flabby chicks were also so so.

Everything about this movie screams amateur. This is Ryan Nicholson's first feature length, and for the most part he failed. There's no denying he has a sick sense of humor and taste for horror. I pray his next movie doesn't play out like another B horror flick...unless he tells us that's what it's gonna be. Even after this disappointment I'm willing to give Ryan another shot. From what I've seen of him, he's a true, dedicated man to the genre. Good luck next time, because this was bad news.",Negative "As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.

The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: ""What WAS it?"" ""A nightmare...from the past!""

Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.

I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free.",Negative "(Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, ""Love in the Time of Money"" is a ""good start"". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth ""Angels in America"" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B)",Positive "I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.

I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.

Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.

Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it ""it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem"".

Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called ""The machine that changed the world"" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also.",Positive "I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.",Negative "Rather nasty piece of business featuring Bela Lugosi as a mad scientist (with yes, a Renfield-like assistant and his mother, a dwarf and yes, the scientist's wife (sounds like a Greenaway movie actually lol). Lugosi gives his wife injections from dead brides (why them? Who knows?) so that his wife can keep looking beautiful. He gets the brides after doing a pretty clever trick with some orchids that makes the brides collapse at the altar. After another bride bites the dust, a newspaper reporter just HAPPENS to be around for the scoop, and decides to snoop around for a story. She gets all sorts of clues about the orchids and Lugosi. Heaven knows where the police were. Soon she's off to Bela's lair, when she meets a sort of strange looking doctor who may or may not be eeeevil. It all cumulates in a totally far-fetched plan to have a fake wedding to capture the mad scientist, but it seems that the scientist has x-ray vision, as he foils her plans, Oh no! What will happen? I actually liked this movie as a bit of a guilty pleasure. Lugosi is great here, his hangers-on are all very very strange, the story is actually quite nasty in some places which makes it all most watchable. A fun little view.",Positive "By far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting.",Negative "Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.)

OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick ""P*nis or bed?"" when she told him she'd ""get him a new one"" after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.

I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.

Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman.",Positive "The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - ""this aint f***ing Disneyworld"" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.",Positive "This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10",Negative "The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.

When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.

Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.

Some people are saying that this film was ""funny"". This film is not ""funny"" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be ""funny""? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.

Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.

If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.

Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.

- a complete MOCKERY of the first film

So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.",Negative "Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. ""A Walk on the Moon"" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.

The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.

The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the ""blouse salesman"" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.

That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.

Poor Diane Lane, she went to make ""Unfaithful"" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!

Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film.",Negative "There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable — a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.",Negative "If you want Scream or anything like the big-studio horror product that we get forced on us these days don't bother. This well-written film kept me up thinking about all it had to say. Importance of myth in our lives to make it make sense, how children interpret the world (and the violence in it), our ransacking of the environment and ignorance of its history and legends.. all here, but not flatly on the surface. You could technically call it a ""monster movie"" even though the Wendigo does not take physical form until the end, and then it's even up to you and your beliefs as to what's happening with the legendary spirit/beast. Some standard thriller elements for those looking just for the basics and the film never bores, though in fact the less you see of the creature, the better. Fessenden successfully continues George Romero's tradition of using the genre as parable and as a discussion forum while still keeping us creeped out.",Positive "Comparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now)",Positive "After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.

Make sure and pay attention, as the ""subtle"" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.

There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she ""normally"" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.

Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.

This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays.",Positive "This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.

Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!",Negative "Principally it is the story of two men who were part of the Portuguese revolution. It was easy to understand the contest, but usually directors starts from a historical fact to speak about something else, or they shows also the period before or after this fact, here everything happen during that couple of days when the revolution acts. It could also be seen as a kind of documentary. The movie focalize to these two people, showing as normal they were, not like common heroes, because the revolution come from people. Although it was made from military army from the title you can understand that they were just ""capitaes"" as the main characters. Nice colors and lights during the whole movie, excellent work for the director being her first movie, she doesn't fall to the banal way. Well shown emotions and passion of people and crowd. The character of Maia (main one)is well-made and there is also a good interpretation for Stefano Accorsi, able to show Maia's limits, this not-being an hero.",Positive "Moon Child was one of the more symbolic movies I've seen. What I really liked about it was the illustration on immorality/mortality,and the obstacles and guidances through life. The movie depicts a great deal of vampire Kei having the power of immorality and the advantages to it. Whether if it is having supernatural abilities or everlasting life, these are what humans usually wish for. Moon Child shows the pain and disadvantages of being immortal, since the feelings towards loss impacts almost all the characters especially to the main characters Sho and Kei. The meaning of the title 'Moon Child' reveals as the film comes close to the end where it clearly shows that everyone is a moon which shines other people's way, giving guidance. I personality quite like that moral the movie depicted on. The weaknesses of the film lies in some parts of the acting and special effects since it made the film less authentic. The scene where character Toshi dies could have been more powerful and realistic if more authentic emotions in the acting were put into it. Some scenes with special effects like the gun shots also could have been more authentic without making it seem too much like an action video game. The sparks that came out of the guns appeared too fake and I think that could have been eliminated or fixed. Nevertheless, I think Moon Child should be a movie everyone should consider watching. The symbolic ideas and images the movie brings out would be easily accepted by everyone and may interest many viewers. It is quite a thoughtful film and also entertaining to watch.",Positive "Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the ""swarthy"" Italian and of course, James Lee as ""The Chinese Cook"", this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step ""peeling of the veneer of the mystery"" is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance.",Positive "Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with ""The Mummy's Tomb.""

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like ""Dracula"" and ""Frankenstein."" The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in ""The Mummy's Hand,"" and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as ""The Mummy's Ghost"" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film ""Mummy"" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The ""new"" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!",Negative "Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters.

Just awful.

I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as ""worthy"" and ""very good."" There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!",Negative "As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much ""Disney"" for my taste.",Positive "I am completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.

There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.

The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas ""California Dreamin'"" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....

All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.

But it ain't.

The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.

I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.

I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.

If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.

You have been warned !",Negative "I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.

The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.

I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least ""You Got Served"" was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me.",Negative "Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.

However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.

If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.

I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').

Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.

Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.

Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public.",Negative "The Good Thing about this movie: The concept is interesting and there are some funny scenes. It also makes you think of those little things in life that could greatly affect the life of someone else without you ever knowing. Its a small world and this little movie shows us.

The Bad Thing:There are too many characters and its hard to tell who the main character is but its still a great movie.

Its a great movie and many people compare it to Magnolia which I haven't seen.

8/10

Not Rated---I would rate it PG-13 for brief violence,some language and sexual situations.",Positive "So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former ""Bennifer""-Couple, and this year it's ""Basic Instinct 2""! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!",Positive "The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.

Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.

The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.

The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.",Negative "Maria Braun got married right in the middle of combat all around her and her husband Hermann. An explosion ripped through the building, to begin with, and she and Hermann had to sign the papers on a pile of rubble on the street. Perhaps this may strike some as a heavy-handed metaphor for what's about to come: marriage on the rocks, so to speak. It's a betrothal where the husband goes off to war and is held in a Russian prison camp, unbenownst to the helpless but hopeful and proud Maria, who keeps standing by the depressing rubble of the train station as some come home, others don't, with a sign awaiting Hermann.

Trouble arises, as happens in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's melodramas, and as its one of his best and most provocative, we see as Maria (uncommonly gorgeous Hanna Schygulla in this role) will do a two-face: she'll stand by her man, even if it means working at a bar for American GI's and, even still after she hears from a fellow soldier that Hermann has died will still stand by him as she sleeps with a black GI and comes close to bearing his child (that is, naturally, until he reappears and a murder occurs and he takes the rap so she can be safe), or working for a German businessman (effectively sympathetic Ivan Desny) and becoming his sometimes mistress and rising star in the company. Maria will do whatever it takes to be successful, but she'll always be married.

It's hard to say there's anything about Maria that isn't fascinating. Money, sex, power, all of these become interchangeable for Maria. She's like the feminist that has her cake and eats it with a sultry smile: she gets to have a husband, more or less (actually a lot less until the last ten minutes of the film) while obtaining things- a man who dotes on her whenever he can, a new and expensive house with servants, a secretary, money- that others around her aren't getting due to already being with a man or too weak in a position to rise anywhere (such as the secretary, played interestingly enough by Fassbinder's own mother).

Maria is sexy, confident, and all alone, with an idealized life going against a life that should be made in the shade. She says of the two men- the American soldier and poor old and sick Oswald- that she's fond of them, and at the same time will stick by those roses the confused and soul-searching husband Hermann sends from Canada, after being released from prison. She's casts a profile that a feminist would love to trounce, but understand where she's coming from and going all the way.

Fassbinder employs this inherent contradiction, and moments with Maria appear to go against the conventions of a melodrama (for example, Hermann walking in on the jubilant and half-naked Maria and GI is just about a masterpiece of a scene, with Maria's reaction not of surprise or guilt but pure happiness to see that he's there let alone alive), while sticking to his guns as a director of such high-minded technique with a storyline that should be predictable. But it isn't really. It's like one big metaphor for a country that, after the war, couldn't really move on to normalcy. A few times Fassbinder puts sound of the radio on in the background, and we see Maria walking around her family house, hustle and bustle going on around her, and the radio speaks of a divided Germany, of things still very unsettled, of a disarray. Maybe the only way to cope is excess, or maybe that's just my interpretation of it.

It's hard to tell, really, under Schygulla's stare face and eyes, anyway. It's such an incredible performance, really, one of those showstoppers that captures the glamor and allure of an old-time Hollywood female star while with the down-and-dirty ethic of a girl of the streets. Most telling are the opposing costumes one sees in one scene when she finally is with her husband, where she stars in one of those super-lustful black lingerie pieces and high heels, and then moves on to a dress without even thinking about it. That's almost the essence of what Maria is, and Schygulla wonderfully gets it down, a headstrong but somehow loving figure who is adored and perplexed by the men around her, sometimes in a single sentence. This is what Fassbinder captures in his wonderful first part of his ""trilogy""; while I might overall prefer Veronika Voss as a masterpiece, Maria Braun is perhaps just as good as a character study, of what makes a woman tick and tock with (almost) nothing to lose.",Positive "The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.

Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.

The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.

No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.

However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast.

For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt.",Positive "Legend of Zu

I remember well Tsui Hark's original Zu Warriors made 18 years earlier. Over one Christmas, on a rare week when Channel 4 in the UK showed a week of Hong Kong movies, Zu Warriors was so gripping for a very young viewer and his brother and so memorable, that it's been etched into the memory of the now grown up sprog...

In fact, I think the original Zu Warriors is one of the earliest films I saw as a kid that I can clearly recall the story line and action scenes from. And the memories of seeing Yuen Biao, Sammo Hung and others in their classic prime.

So when I saw this remake of Zu Warriors, there was a feeling of apprehension. Could it beat the dreamy childhood memories I had of the original, or will it follow the road of other remakes and die a death more horrible than the baddies and their broken necks you find in those kung fu movies?

Well the answer is I can't say. But that was because this isn't really a remake. The stories (and styles) are almost completely different.

The Legend of Zu tells of the story of King Sky, a lone warrior, whose master, Dawn, declares her love for him but her life is taken from her by a monster called Insomnia. Two hundred years later, Insomnia returns, Dawn is reincarnated as Enigma, and Insomnia has returned to destroy Zu. Meanwhile White Eyebrows and Red try, with the help of King Sky, to stop Insomnia.

The plot isn't one full of twists and turns, but had enough detail in it to keep me interested. But I can see this film as one you either love or you hate. The film is very much about the special effects, with the majority of it involving several computer generated environments, much like The Storm Riders and A Man Called Hero. But unlike the other two, this film was one which didn't overdo the graphics and the whole thing was tasteful. Nothing appears rushed - unlike Hero. The backgrounds were complementary to the acting and not at all overpowering the scenes.

The story also involves plenty of characters and the intermingling of so many individuals does make the film intriguing. It was possibly on the verge of 'too many cooks', but generally each character had its part in the story. But some of the roles appear to be 'extended cameos' in my opinion, and I somehow am left to slightly question the necessity of this.

Ekin Cheng and Louis Koo play very central roles in the film, but I couldn't say this film showed their best performances. Cecilia Cheung appears to at least have matured in her acting, but it is still quite raw. Kelly Lin was the new revelation for me. Despite her very short role, I have apologise and admit to ogling!

Overall, I have to say, did enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the 'original'. Given that both movies are made by the legendary Tsui Hark, the two films together are part of a chronicle showing how film making in Hong Kong has changed over two decades. And one beauty of that is the fact that you can't really compare the two films at all, as much as apples are apples and pears are pears.

Ultimately, both are thoroughly enjoyable films in their own right. And I'm going back to reminisce by watching the original again.

Two to watch, but not compare.",Positive "Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that ""tragedy is like another character"" in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.

Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.

In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).

Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since.",Positive "Diego Armando Maradona was, and still remains as the best football player, the game has offered. Not just an athlete, but an artist. This documetary if the 1986 World Cup will forever live in the memories of every football fan around the world. Because of his tremendous and unbelievable goal, which he scored against my own country(england). There's absolutely no point of diminishing this star. Although I dont undersand spanish, I can appreciate the argentine narrator. He actually cries of happiness, and can barely express his emotion..... Anything I wrote can be senseless and difficult to comprehend, but readers.....you have to watch this to know what I mean.",Positive "First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.

We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.

Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.",Negative "This movie should be nominated for a new genre: Complete Mess! Except for a few chuckles and one or two scenes of gore, this movie is a complete waste of time. Calling it ""Campy"" doesn't even cut it. ""Campy"" implies fun which this movie was not. You spend the first half of the movie thinking ""Its got to get better, right?"". In fairness, it does, at the very end when its finally explained who the ""brother/sister"" team are and what they want but by then, you hardly care anymore because you've spend the entire second half of the movie wondering exactly what did Mr. Onorati & Ms. Pacula do to tick someone off THIS badly to be stuck in such a horrible movie.

",Negative "The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect it to be and nothing more. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes.

The plot is basically about a group of National Guard trainees who find themselves battling against the notorious mutated hillbillies on their last day of training in the desert. It's just them fighting back throughout the whole film, which includes a lot of violence (which is basically the whole film) as blood and guts are constantly flying around throughout the whole thing, and also yet another graphic rape scene which is pointlessly thrown in to shock the audience.

I'd give the Hills Have Eyes II 4 out of 10 for pure entertainment, and that only. Although even then I found myself looking at my watch more and more as the film went on, as it began to drag due to the fact it continued to try and shock the audience with graphic gore and the occasional jump scene just to make sure the audience stays awake. The Hills Have Eyes II is just decent entertainment, something to pass time if you're bored, and nothing else.

4/10",Negative "Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****",Negative "the first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10.",Negative "Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.",Positive "I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the ""old"" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing ""Cabin Fever"", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly ""scary"" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an ""hommage"" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a ""good"" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times (""let's try to get help!""), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.

I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that ""new"" isn't necessarily ""better"". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.",Negative "Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****",Negative "Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths.

The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.",Negative "First off, let me say I have wanted to see this movie for about a year now because I knew Angelina Jolie was in it and I love her. But my love for her has nothing to do with my opinion of the movie. Anyhow, no video stores carried it but low and behold the local library did. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Yes there were Italian stereotypes but it was done well and funny. It was not degrading in any way.

Every actor and actress did a superb job. I laughed very hard at the sexual humor. Overall, I think this movie is well worth seeing if you can find it. It is adorable and just plain fun to watch. I rarely rank movies as a 10 but I give this one a 10!!!

Go find it and watch it!",Positive "Maybe the movie itself isn't one of the best Jackie Chan's movies, but I think everybody will agree with me that the mall fight was one of the best fighting scenes ever made. There also was some memorable stunts, which were so impressive that they made this movie an action classic. This movie influenced many other action movies and I think that nowadays action movie makers should learn from this film (like they could remake that chase scene, I thing with modern technologies they could make it even better). There also were some funny scenes which made this movie enjoyable even when Jackie wasn't fighting. Althou I think they could put more fighting scenes in this film.",Positive "A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.

My Grade: F",Negative "If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.",Negative "Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the ""point-of-view"" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as ""Hellraiser"" and ""Entrapment"" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel.",Negative "Nothing new in this hackneyed romance with characters put into unbelievable situations, speaking dialogue that borders on the ridiculous. This is an example of another movie put into production before serious script problems were solved. Don't waste your time.",Negative "This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series ""Life Goes On"", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say ""systematic derangement of the senses"" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?",Negative "Imagine that in adapting a James Bond novel into a movie, the filmmakers eliminated all the action and suspense in order to make it kid-friendly. Or if a television producer told Chris Rock he couldn't cuss so that his specials could be rated PG. In the same way, the director of the movie ""Something Wicked This Way Comes"" took out the excitement and gore in favor of melodrama for younger audiences. This created a monotonous plot without the complications of the book. In trying to make the story of ""Something Wicked This Way Comes"" easier for children to follow, the filmmakers eliminated the theme of good and evil both existing in everyone, and good always prevailing over evil. This is apparent in Will's character transformation, Charles Halloway's rescue of Jim, and the carnival's defeat.

Will's transformation into a more adventurous boy has been muted in the movie. The scene in which the Dust Witch visits Will's house in a balloon has been cut from the film. Instead, a green mist follows Jim and Will home and gives them the same bad dream about the Witch and her spiders. The balloon attack shows us that Will has begun to conquer his fear of doing things on his own. He gets on top of a neighbor's roof and tears the balloon with a bow, defeating the Witch. ""Sorry, Dad, he thought, and sat up, smiling. This time it's me out, alone,"" Will decides as he prepares to face her (147.) Removing this scene from the movie prevents us from understanding that Will is becoming more adventuresome. The film shows us many examples of Will being afraid to follow Jim, but never growing curious like his friend. In the book, Will has both a good, quiet side and an ""evil,"" daring side like his Jim. In the movie, each boy only has one mode of thought, which destroys Bradbury's theme of both good and evil being present in each person.

In the book, Will saves Jim because of their friendship, but, in the movie, Charles Halloway saves Jim to repay Jim's father. Will pulls Jim off the carousel in Bradbury's novel because he doesn't want his best friend to grow up without him. It is the good in Will, the fact that he cares about his friend, that saves Jim from the evil curse of the carnival. On the carousel, Jim ""gestured his other hand free to trail on the wind, the one part of him, the small, white, separate part that still remembered their friendship"" (269.) This shows that there was good left inside of Jim, which has the potential to still defeat evil. But when Charles Halloway saves Jim in the movie, he does it to repay the debt he owes Jim's father, who saved Will when he was a little boy. By changing the motivation for saving Jim, the filmmakers have ruined Bradbury's original idea that it takes good to win against evil.

In the end of the movie, the carnival is defeated by a tornado and lightning instead of smiles and laughter. When the book ends, Mr. Dark turns himself into a little boy and Charles Halloway smiles and laughs at him so much that he can't stand it and evaporates. In Bradbury's world, evil people feed off fear and can only be defeated by happiness and love. His message is that good will always prevail over evil, but only if that goodness is expressed outwardly. ""Good to evil seems evil,"" says Charles Halloway as he holds the dying Mr. Dark. ""So I will do only good to you, Jed. I'll simply hold you and watch you poison yourself"" (275.) In the movie, Mr. Dark is the only one left on the carousel when lightning hits it, and he dies. By eliminating the weapon of laughter and smiles, the filmmakers imply that bad weather is the most effective way to defeat evil, as if lightning only strikes those who are bad. This takes away the major theme of Bradbury's book, which is that doing ""good"" toward others wards off evil.

Good may always triumph over evil, but trying to make movies more kid-friendly will always force filmmakers to leave out some of the themes from the books they are based on. In the movie, ""Something Wicked This Way Comes,"" Will does not transform, Will's friendship does not save Jim, and smiles and laughter do not defeat the carnival. As a result, the filmmakers have left out too many of Bradbury's main points. The process of adapting a book to a movie too often ruins the world the author has established. In the case of this story, Bradbury's frightening world of opposing forces of good and evil has been reduced to a tamer, simpler version of itself.",Negative "I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.

I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.

The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the ""origin"" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.

Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.

By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.

",Negative "I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough.

Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction.

Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!

Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.

All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here.",Positive "In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.

Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.

There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.

Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.

At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.",Negative "**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.

Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.

Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.

At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.

The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.

We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.

With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.",Negative "Okay, so I have come a long way from Houston by now, but whenever I see this movie, I am taken back to a little cowgirl's dream to one day ride the bull at Gilley's. (It burned down before I was of drinking age.)

If you grew up in in East Texas, then you know this movie is an accurate depiction of contemporary life at that time. If you didn't then trust me and watch the movie. Either you will join the many who love it (and at the same time strangely repulsed), or at the very least, you can make fun of the red-necks. (There is plenty material for poking fun.) This movie doesn't try to be P.C. (what was that in the 80's) or hide the white trash element and it is honest to the time and place.

Gotta be a 10 for me!",Positive "what can i say. oh yeah those freaking fingers are so weird. they scare the heck out of me. but it is such a funny film, Jim Carrey works the grinch. if you havent already seen it then what you waiting for an invitation. go, go and get watch it. you dont know what your missing.",Positive "This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.",Negative "this movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass",Negative "One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).",Negative "I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.",Negative "i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them, culminating in the premier of their new original picture, hammerhead: shark frenzy. based on the previews, it looked like it was going to be HIGHLY amusing. essentially a remake of benchley's creature, really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3: megalodon, which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood; i was ready to go. bring it on, hammerhead-mad-scientist-man! oh, god, was that movie wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

sick. twisted. MESSED UP.

this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst, my friends. when a drugged-out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark-human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane ""scientist"" deliberately implanted in her womb wants OUT... Jesus monkeys. that's what i call disturbing.

that's really how the plot works: hmmm, thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer, but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark, because sharks don't succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh, look! a perfect amphibious being! i've created the next evolution of the human race! I KNOW! let's make him reproduce! but darned if all those shark genes have't made my son bloodthirsty; instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise, he keeps eating him. but check this out! among the random people who have, by way of some unimportant plot twist, ended up on my research island, is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died! i bet he'll do HER! all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion: woman: you're going to impregnate me? mad scientist: no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark-person in tank) how sweet.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ever.",Negative "I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.

First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in ""North and South"" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.

Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.

SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good.

Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?",Negative "this is the perfect example of something great going awfully bad... hence, can i advice anyone to watch it? well, i was kinda obliged by the fact that in was in the tiff competition (i still can't believe it won)..and i only remained until the end because the director was there for a q&a section..but that was also anything but interesting.. what's it about? well the first half (the worth watching one) presents three characters: a hooker, a musician and some kind of official..the first two lie about their professions..but the third is the actual liar.. the second half (do something else..don't ruin a good evening) includes some old breasts and heavy drinking.. but maybe you will see it completely different...the tiff jury did (were they drinking vodka ?)",Negative "I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.

Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional ""clothing style"" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.

I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.",Negative "It is hard to describe Bug in words, it is one of those films that truly has to be seen to be understood. It follows a narrative that is more fluid and interesting than anything I have seen lately in a Hollywood release. As its characters react to the chain of events in different ways, and as the events dictate different paths for the characters to follow, the audience is merely an observer. The almost Proustian narrative flow of thought to thought, the very spontaneity in the script will have you glued to the screen, waiting anxiously to see how it all works out in the end. And as far as the thematic elements...there is a particular sequence in the film that goes from melancholy, to bright and beautiful, and then to tragic, all within the span of about a minute. And it works.

This movie is pure magic. It reminds one why independent film is perhaps the brightest star the film industry currently has. Perhaps with more movies of Bug's quality, people will start to take notice.",Positive "This movie is humorous, charming, and easily becomes a favorite for those who enjoy light entertainment. Hollywood is hardly the place for serious history lessons so I simply accept it as is. Bing, in his usual inimitable style, performs quite well as the blacksmith, Hank Martin, who by accident is transported back to another age, the time of King Arthur. The beautiful Rhonda Fleming is breathtaking as Alisande, or Sandy, the object of Hank's affections although she is betrothed to the brave and formidable Sir Lancelot, played by Henry Wilcoxon.

I just love that episode when King Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke), Sir Sagramore (Wm. Bendix), and Hank (Bing Crosby) dress up in tattered clothing and take to the high road with their knapsacks to experience the kingdom at firsthand. King Arthur's comment, ""I say, we are not alone"" while giving his scruffy garments a good scratch, is one of those hilarious moments in the film. William Bendix's portrayal is superbly ridiculous, not to mention his attempts at quaint ""ye Olde English.""

The story is not deep but it's well done in my opinion and I enjoy it more each time I see it. It's great family entertainment too.

",Positive "* Firstly, although many say it is the worst of the series, i don't think that it is true,considering this one ideally reflects the 21 century teen mentality .it brings perfect opportunities to make you laugh and remind you of the good teenager times when you would have liked to have same fun as the characters do.

* I Agree with the fact that it is a teenager movie but comedy movies nowadays aren't supposed to be for teenagers?i mean... cinemas are mostly the place for teenagers to hang out; plus ,seeing such a movie during a sleepover or something like that is very good for having a very good time.

* Many comment about the amount of nudity in this movie. Well...let's get real...doesn't that reflect the thoughts of teen guys like those from the movie? what would you like to see...smart books,romantic stuff? that is not at all what would be in those teenagers' minds ...

* To conclude, i think that if you are a teenager, you must absolutely see the movie, and even if you are a real grown up man or a woman, you should see it if you still have a teen mind or you often think about how it was being a teenager,or things like that. Thanks for reading!",Positive "Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in ""N.Y.P.D. Blues"".",Negative This movie is the next segment in the pokemon movies which supplies everything on hopes and dreams of a pokemon warrior named Ash Ketchim and his friends. they go out and they look battle and run into new pokemon and take on new adventures with Pikachu and other pokemon favorites. This adventure takes on with a new pokemon called Celebi a time pokemon. Go join ash Brock and Misty to find all sorts of new things!,Positive "I went into The Straight Story expecting a sad/happy type drama with nice direction and some good acting. These I got. What I wasn't expecting was an allegory for the trials of human existence. Leave it to Lynch to take a simple story about a 300 mile trip on a lawnmower and turn it into a microcosm for the human condition.

If you didn't notice, watch it again, paying attention to the ages of the people Alvin meets, the terrain he's driving through, the reactions people give him, the kinds of discussions he has (one of the first is about pregnancy and children, one of the last is outside of a cemetery). The last road he drives down is particulary haunting in this context, as it narrows and his fear and nervousness mount. The last mechanical failure could be seen as a death, and the miraculous rebirth of his engine relating to an afterlife, in which he achieves the desired reunion.

I only hope some of the people who branded this as a slow sappy melodrama take the time to watch with a more holistic attention.",Positive "Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.

Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.

The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.

The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.

We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.

The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change.",Positive "When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .

I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions.

Yes, the movie is very much like ""Bend it like Beckham"", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better.",Positive "OMG this was the most painful experience of my life watching this. I could even finish it what is happening to Nick. Their best thing on teen Nick is Drake and Josh and thats about to go off air. The kids songs are kinda of annoying and the so are the kids. My little sister wanted to watch the show because she likes anything that comes on Disney or nick usually but after finish watching this show she said "" one of the worst shows that I have ever saw so boring."" My little brother actually fell asleep I envy him. In short if your 3yrs old with no brain activity you'll enjoy this show otherwise change the channel now.",Negative "After hitting the viewers with three very different episodes right off the bat, Serling continued to go about introducing viewers to 'The Twilight Zone' in a very strange way by scheduling one the series biggest growers as the fourth episode. 'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' is one of the more understated episodes, focusing on an aging movie star's inability to cope with the changing times and only introducing a supernatural element in the closing minutes. Because of this approach, the episode is under whelming at first but subsequent viewings reveal it to be a thoroughly classy and beautifully written short story.

Both the leads, Ida Lupino as Barbara Jean Trent and Martin Balsam as her frustrated but caring agent, shine in their performances. The main problem with the episode is that the supposedly 25 year old footage of the actress is unconvincing. Lupino looks identical when playing the young Trent as she does when playing the middle aged Trent and this diminishes the tragedy of the situation significantly. Fortunately, Lupino acts her socks off in convincing us of her desperation to return to the past. It's a situation most can sympathise with, and yet Trent is far from a sympathetic character. She is a prima-donna who gives little thought to the feelings of those around her, such as the disastrously withered co-star who she tactlessly belittles because he reminds her of just how long ago her glory days were. It is somewhat surprising, then, that she is rewarded with a happy ending. It is clear what is going to happen from the moment we see the huge projection screen and it is cleverly pre-empted in the opening moments when Trent scares her maid by stepping out from behind the screen. What is not clear at the beginning, however, is whether being sucked into the projector will prove a reward or a harsh lesson in appreciating what we have and living in the moment. As it turns out, Trent is allowed to return to the past she longed for, a testament to how strong the wishful thinking of humans can be.

'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' gets better with each viewing. The top notch writing and acting combine to create a short play of enormous power which reflects the nature of humans to long for the past, even though we can never return. Except in the Twilight Zone.",Positive "There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's ""Jindabyne"" and his last movie ""Lantana"" – a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas ""Lantana"" offered some hope and resolution, ""Jindabyne"" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.

The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble ""Short Cuts"". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions ""Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?"" and more poignantly for Australians ""Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?"" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike ""Picnic at Hanging Rock"".

If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.",Negative "I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.",Positive "An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.

A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with ""Oh God"". So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7.",Positive Most people who have seen this movie thinks that it is the best movie ever made. I disagree but this movie is very very good. Tony is a bad ass guy and knows that he's intimidating and uses it to get ahead. It's about him and how he goes from washing dishes to having a huge house and a office with cocaine all over the desk. If you want a family movie then this isn't the way to go but if you want mobsters and vengeance and stuff like that then you'll like it.,Positive "I always found Betsy Drake rather creepy, and this movie reinforces that. As another review said, this is a stalker movie that isn't very funny. I watched it because it has CG in it, but he hardly gets any screen time. It's no ""North by Northwest""...",Negative "*** Spoilers*

My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.

The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.

All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.

",Positive "I like the movie. Twisted Desire had Jeremy Jordan,one of my favorite and one of the cutest actors ever. Melissa Joan Hart is a good actress. I've seen most of her movies but all of Jeremy Jordan's. The thing i dislike about Twisted Desire is when ""Nick"" gets arrested and ""Jennifer"" rats him out. Twisted Desire is my second favorite movie. My first is The Goonies. But i still love Jeremy Jordan.",Positive "Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest.",Negative "I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is not one of them.

Interminable chase scenes, dim-witted dialogue, and terrible lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.

And that is the only way I was able to watch this...",Negative "I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters (""The highway belongs to me...ME!""), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the ""plot"", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.",Negative "Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it!",Positive "Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is ""It ain't braggin' if it is a fact"" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.",Negative "Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.",Negative "I borrowed (slightly modified) title from some other comment. I have to say, that as i usually don't like relationship series, I really did liked this one. Great characters, interesting and not cliché story, good acting, good and again not cliché (which in case of dialogs is rather rare) dialogs ... It is really interesting, how the characters cross paths with each other, and sometimes knowingly, sometimes more or less at random influence each others lives. But unfortunately, as we say in our country - do you know how do you recognize a good US series? It is the one that got canceled before the end of the first season. Sure, it isn't always true, but ...",Positive "This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.

Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.

Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid",Negative "This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.",Negative "Thanks to a smart script and a steady hand from Writer/Director Kevin Meyer, ""Perfect Alibi"" is an entertaining and very likable mystery thriller. The movie starts methodically and builds up steam as the clues begin to reveal that nothing is what it seems to be. Teri Garr and Hector Elizondo are terrific as they team up to unravel the mystery, reminding me of Nick and Nora Charles, from the ""Thin Man"" movies. Kathleen Quinlan is excellent as Alex McArthur's tormented wife and the character roles, played by veteran actors Charles Martin Smith, Bruce McGill, Anne Ramsey and Estelle Harris are well done and provide plenty of light moments at just the right time. There's even a cameo by Rex Linn. In all, I felt like I was reading a good book by the fire.",Positive I was overtaken by the emotion. Unforgettable rendering of a wartime story which is unknown to most people. The performances were faultless and outstanding.,Positive "Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, ""I'll take it under advisement,"" and ""Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no,"" is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy.",Positive "Having seen both ""Fear of a Black Hat"" and ""This is Spinal Tap"", I can honestly state that while similar, both movies are truly must see. There will be many times in ""Fear"" that will have you in hysterics. It is no wonder why both movies have such a huge cult following. ""Fear"" will soon be available on DVD. Rent it if you must, but the only way to fully enjoy this movie is to have it for yourself.",Positive "I saw this a couple of nights back, not expecting too much and unsurprisingly it didn't deliver anything too exciting. The plot set up of a crew of vampire hunters (V-San, for vampire sanitation), going around in their spaceship periodically killing space vamps and rescuing people, is quite sound and had the film been handled better it might well have been something quite ace. Unfortunately after a fairly decent opening the sense of actual quality starts to drain away from the film, leaving something behind that, though vacantly watchable, is quite laughably bad. I don't expect anything too special from these films that pop up on the Sci Fi Channel and at least this wasn't one of their creature features with an atrocious cgi beast shambling about, but it was still pretty bad, mostly due to the writing and acting, but with a sterling contribution to the overall badness made by the horrible music. When the film opted just for a typical science fiction sounding weird noises approach to the soundtrack it did OK, but all too often hilariously bad soft rock intruded and pitched scenes into silliness. I would have tolerated the general cheesy acting and writing more were it not for the choice of music, which was a serious miscalculation, turning things from cheesy to lamely comical. Of the acting, Dominic Zamprogna was OK but bland as the nominal hero, whilst Leanne Adachi was pretty irritating as the tough girl of the vamp busting team and Aaron Pearl played another member who wasn't well written or interesting enough to make an impression. Though she didn't seem that good at the acting lark Natassia Malte did well through having a less irritating character than the others, and the fact that she is seriously nice to look at. The only serious name in the cast is Michael Ironside and he is underused though he does nicely, pretty amusing in a manner one suspects was intentional. He seems to have fun and earn his paycheck and his role is entertaining. The effects are OK on the whole, they are at least of the standards of the average science fiction TV show, and there are also a few scenes of blood splatter and a bit of fun gore as well. Things move along nicely, and I almost feel harsh rating this film badly, but then I remember bursting into laughter at regular intervals and realising that unless the film is an intentional comedy, which I don't think it is, then it simply doesn't succeed. Too much is lame, daft, unconvincing, its an OK effort I guess but it didn't appeal to me. Only give it a go if you really dig Sci Fi trash or unintended chuckles I'd say.",Negative "I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain!",Negative "Riding Giants is a brilliant documentary that dives deep into the world of one of the most under-appreciated sports and brings to the surface a very human and raw emotion that only director Stacy Peralta could capture. Everything from the structure, to the players, to the amazing stock footage, to even the style in which this was filmed only reinforced the beauty and power behind the sport of surfing. Of all the surfing films that I have seen (Endless Summer, Billabong Odyssey, and Step Into Liquid) this was the most consistent and relevant. Beginning with the early ages of surfing (a brief history lesson) lasting all the way till Laird's infamous ride, Riding Giants goes further into the mind, heart, and soul of the sport than any of these other documentaries. How does it do this? By giving us the whole story, from start to finish, without fictionalizing or jig jagging from wave to wave.

To begin this film was structurally sound. In the other films that I have seen about surfing, you sometimes find yourself jumping from new person to new person, wave to wave, event to event, without any knowledge of why or who? In Riding Giants, we have a very small cast of veterans and newbies. This allows you to really go deeper into the mind of each one. Also, instead of just riding waves, we are handed more history and more personal insight to the world than before. This is what really attracted me to this film. I was impressed that instead of showing all these big waves (because it is a big wave movie), we listen to stories and see first hand what these surfers had to overcome to get to those waves. I loved the information about the ""beach bums"" or father's of surfing. I am still floored by the amazing tales of Greg Noll and his early adventures into the harsh deep blue. Then, to see him in person, talking about what was going on in his mind, only added more fuel to the fire. The straightforward structure that Peralta followed allowed me to follow and walk away with more knowledge of the sport than with any of the earlier films. Peralta shows so much emotion and passion that you cannot help but be amazed by what these brave people have done, and where the sport is going.

Add to a immaculate structure some intense and creative cinematography, and you have darn near perfect film. Using techniques that I last saw in The Kid Stays in the Picture, Riding Giants creates some scenes that almost feel as if they are jumping out of the screen. While it isn't 3D, it is that flat dimensional feeling that you get when you put two pictures on top of each other. In this film, it worked. It created more depth to the scenes, and really added to not just the shock value (man these waves were huge), but also the danger that these guys constantly faced. If it broke differently or they maneuvered wrong, these waves would kill them. Some did die, but it didn't stop the sport. It only created more excitement and more passion to do better. It is this love of the ocean and sport that leads me to my final point.

The human element. So many of my earlier adventures in the world of surfing documentaries left me with beautiful waves, but very little about the people. The films knew that people were watching for the waves, so it would basically go from wave to wave to wave and the maybe a short second about the person. This film was the direct opposite. Peralta created this masterpiece by still giving us the waves, but devoting so much more attention onto the surfers and the immortal question of why they do this everyday. What rushes through their minds, what pushes them to go further, and the bonds that are formed while out there on the wild blue yonder. I felt like after watching this film that I not only knew more about big wave surfing, but also about the emotional side to the sport. This was an element not as developed in the other films and pushed Riding Giants to a whole new personal level.

Overall, this film was brilliant. Never have I witnessed so much passion, devotion, and love wrapped in a structurally sound film. From beginning to end, I was impressed. I would be very happy if this film won the Oscar this year for Best Documentary, and to see a new rebirth in the surfing world and open more doors for films of this nature.

Grade: ***** out of *****",Positive I am truly beginning to believe that Seagal is on a mission to see how crappy his films could become.This particular movie was a complete and utter waste of time to see.My first complaint was the cover of the DVD where they have doctored his pic and made him look slimmer and younger when in the film he looks like crap.He has his big pot belly and double chin going for him and the most miserable and bored look on his face.

The whole plot was ridiculous to begin with and drawn out way too long.The whole film was leading up to the finale where Seagal and his team had to take on a bunch of people under the influence of a top secret military chemical adrenaline enhancer.There was way too much useless dialogue and not to mention the ridiculous and constant dubbing of Seagals voice even in the middle of a statement.The dubbed voice sounded like a man with a frog in his throat and was quite comical.

The fight scenes in the film were horrible.Half the time when Seagal fought you could not even see what was going on.There would be tight shots of him flapping his arms at the camera and then the person flying through a wall or something.It was reminiscent of the old Kung Fu series on television.They used way too much slow motion for the fight scenes.

I believe this is Seagals worst film to date and I am glad I did not purchase this film or I would have been very upset since I am a huge fan of Seagal the Aikidoist.The action star is quickly fading away and seems to be getting worse with every performance.,Negative "After her Oscar-nominated turn in ""Secrets & Lies"", Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great ""Saving Grace"". And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.

After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.

Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that!",Positive "The question of whether or not one likes this film version of ""The Ghost Train"" invariably depends on one thing and one thing alone: your reaction to the performance of Arthur Askey.

He tends to steal almost every scene he's in, and not always in a good way. Sometimes you wish he'd settle down or back off just a little, to allow the plot's many characters to feature and develop (which they do to some extent). But somehow everything keeps pointing back to Askey's Tommy Gander character.

Personally I like the film, and even like Askey to an extent. I always seem to plonk it into the vcr at those odd hours of the early morning when I can't sleep and really can't find the energy to watch anything else. There is something about watching old b/w movies in the quiet dark of pre-dawn that I find appealing....",Positive "I love this movie!!! Purple Rain came out the year I was born and it has had my heart since I can remember. Prince is so tight in this movie. I went to a special showing of Purple Rain last night and it was like a concert i was glad to see some true fans cause this movie is so undervalued, it is really one of the greatest movies of all time. The music is untouchable. The movie is about ""The Kid"", played by Prince, his family is dysfunctional, his band is the hottest act in town, and he has his eyes on the Apollonia, an aspiring singer. There is no question why purple is my favorite color I can thank ""The Kid"" for that. So if you have not seen this then you are need to asap. This is a classic - 4ever!",Positive "One of the best films I have seen in the past five years! The cast is universally spectacular in a tale of young love and bravado on the Lower East Side of New York City with the two leads being superstars in the making. Funny, charming, sad and inspiring, this is a totally refreshing take on urban youth that puts Larry Clark's often-nauseating shtick in the gutter where it belongs... although I have to admit that Bully was a cut above his normal fare. Raising Victor Vargas is one film you will kick yourself for missing... so don't miss it!",Positive "Although this show has been off the air since 1973, after viewing a DVD set I borrowed at our library, I felt compelled to say a bit about it.

I can remember when it was the only color show on television in the 1960s, and sometimes there would be a little ""Sunday Night Party"" with friends to watch this on NBC on one of the few color televisions.

I really enjoy history not so much for the names and dates but how it influences us today and how so much can be so profound based on the most inconsequential actions of the time. Case in point: Virginia City, Nevada, which became one of the richest cities in the world because of the silver, got its name from a character named ""Old Virginny"", who, in the town's early days, stumbled out of a saloon, fell and broke his whiskey bottle.

Old Virginny didn't want to waste the occasion so as the precious liquid was seeping into the dirt he decided to christen the town ""Virginia Town"". The area became known as the Comstock Lode because another character, Henry Comstock, had the reputation of trying to jump everyone's claim and the area became known as the Comstock Lode.

I just watched an early episode that dealt with these 2 subjects. Other episodes dealt with Mark Twain's literary rise while a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise...

It was wholesome (and frequently educational) family entertainment. As someone else remarked, each episode would really be considered a movie in its own right - rich scripts and characters.

One thing it twisted the truth on was the proximity to Virginia City and the Ponderosa. In truth, to ride from the Ponderosa (all of Northern Lake Tahoe), one would have to ride his horse about 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) down the Spooner Summit to the high desert (3,000-4,000 feet) of the Carson Valley then another 30-40 miles to Virginia city.

Needless to say the Cartwrights would have some sore rear ends doing this on a regular basis. But every writer should have some leeway with the truth.

How I miss that show, even today.",Positive "The teasers for Tree of Palme try to pass it off as a sort of allegory for a fairy tale with actual meaning, then immediately start raving about the animation. I should have known what that meant.

The main character, Palme, is a good example of the whole movie's problem. One minute, Palme is a humble hero in search of himself, the next a violent psycho with an unhealthy fixation on a girl he once took care of.

Like all of the characters in the movie, Palme is poorly defined. You do not bond with the characters at all, although Shatta has acquired a couple of fan girls. It seems that the writer was more interested in cramming all the drama and complexity he could into this movie than actually exploring his characters' motivations and personalities.

New, useless story lines were being introduced in the last fifteen minutes of the movie. The writer seriously needed to streamline his story. Perhaps he was trying to be epic, but it was simply too much information for a two-hour movie. However I can't help but wonder if a plot with so many dimensions and characters would have been better suited for a TV series or graphic novel.

In the last five minutes of the movie, I simply could not endure the sheer lack of quality any longer and began laughing at how contrived the characters, the relationships, and the whole plot was. I touched my companion and he started cracking up too, as did a young man seated behind us. We tried so hard to control ourselves, but we simply could not take the terrible quality of this movie.

On the bright side, the animation is incredible and viewers will find themselves admiring the lush backgrounds and charming character designs. The animation almost guides you; when you don't care about the characters, it tells you how to feel.",Negative "I've never been to Paris, but after seeing ""Paris, Je t'aime"" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York?",Negative "Louis Sachar's compelling children's classic is about as Disney as Freddy Krueger. It's got murder, racism, facial disfigurement and killer lizards.

Tightly plotted, it's a multi-layered, interlinking story that spans history to reveal Stanley's own heritage and the secret behind the holes. It races from Latvia's lush greenness to the pock-marked Camp Green Lake (hint: there's no lake and no green).

Disney's first success is re-creating the novel's environments so convincingly - the set design is superb and without gloss. The other plus is in the casting. Rising star Shia LaBeouf (Charlie's Angels 2, Project Greenlight) might not be the fat boy of the book, but his attitude is right and he's far from the usual clean-cut hero. The rest of the cast is filled out equally well, from Patricia Arquette as the Frontier school marm-turned-bank robber to Henry Winkler as Stanley's dad. The downside is the pop soundtrack - pure marketing department - and having the sentiment turned up to full volume at the end.",Positive "A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.

The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.

The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel.

4/10",Negative "Short, but long enough, Cat Soup is a very wild trip to watch. One day, I was just searching though my On-demand list through the anime section and came across it, and decided to watch it. I spent the whole time basically sitting with my jaw agape. The whole time I was either vacant of thought, or had a fleeting one which screamed ""TURN IT OFF!!!"". But I didn't. And actually, I'm glad I did.

The animation is stunning. Very artistic, odd and dark. I personally loved it for the amazing animation, but the seemingly vacant story behind it is equally compelling for myself.

A young boy--well, cat--goes in search of his sister's soul. In the first part she's lying sick in bed, and is soon paid by a visit from a sort of grim reaper. Her soul is split in half. One is regained by the cat boy while the other half is lost.

Then the rest of the film is slightly lost to me, honestly. I expect they go back, and their world is... perhaps slowly falling apart? Maybe her absence of soul is the answer behind this, for the rest of the film contains various stages of which the world's in. First there's a giant flood, and next it dries up into a bleak desert, and then everything freezes (thanks to either what is God or fate, as you will see). Then I believe they find the sister's soul in the form of an orange flower. After that, the whole world disappears. Haha, totally didn't get that, but it sends shivers down my spine each time.

Despite it's seemingly random scenes, I'm sure there's a deeper message behind it if you watch it enough and do some research. Personally, I LOVE trippy stuff like this, and would love to spend time doing that just to understand it. But to some people it's probably not their cup of tea. It comes off as highly disturbing, so if you like your straight forward anime, this is not a film for you. If you have an open mind however, I highly recommend this movie.",Positive "This is a excellent start to the film career of Mickey Rooney. His talents here shows that a long career is ahead for him. The car and truck chase is exciting for the 1937 era. This start of the Andy Hardy series is an American treasure in my book. Spring Byington performance is excellent as usual. Please Mr Rooney or owners of the film rights, take a chance and get this produced on DVD. I think it would be a winner.",Positive "(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!!

I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !

I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.

Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.

Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.

What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !

At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word.

P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the ""Additional Details"" his usual ""Plot Keywords"" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !",Negative "this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says.",Positive "I have watched this movie a few times and never really thought it was that funny, but it's still fun to watch and good for a few laughs.

Its about women that work at a company and their boss is a jerk and they end up giving him a taste of his own medicine, and try to get the respect they deserve.

The acting is really good. Dabney Coleman is one of those 80's stars that plays a good bad guy, not really evil, just unlikeable. Dolly Partin is lovable and fun to watch in comedies and her down south wit really shines here. Jane Fonda is so-so and does little for me. Lily Tomlin is the best thing about this movie, she has the funniest lines and made me laugh out loud several times, gotta love her.

I could recommend this to anyone that likes 80's comedy. I like the movie but it has things about it that I don't like. It starts off great and has a nice flow and then everything starts coming together all at once and made me care less about the characters. They all have little fantasies about what they would like to do the boss and although 'cute' I just thought it slowed down the flow of the movie. As the movie goes on it once again picks up and the funniest things happen and then once again it slows down, only to wrap up in a quick manner thats too good to be true.

4 out of 10 stars, but give it a try if you haven't seen it. I think depending on ones mood it may be more or less likable.",Negative "One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of ""The Magnificent Seven"" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)",Negative "Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.

This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...

Avoid like the plague.

Rating 1 out of 10.",Negative "Famous words of foreign nightclub owner Roman Maroni, that ""lousy cork sucker"" who spends the whole movie not only as Johnny Dangerously's rival, but butchering the English language as well.

Another underrated classic that you can only find on afternoon matinées or ""Late Late Late Show""'s, Johnny Dangerously is a terrific satirical hit about a good hearted boy who secretly leads a life of crime to help pay for his mother's medical care and put his brother through law school.

Yes there's a story, but who cares?? A cast that includes Joe Piscopo, Dom DeLuise, Marilu Henner, and Alan Hale Jr will keep you waiting to see what happens next.

There's too many laughs in this to put on here. Like Airplane, you have to pay attention or you'll miss something. Highly recommended to anyone who can use a good laugh or two!!!",Positive "This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.

I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched ""Redneck Zombies"", ""House of the Psychotic Women"", ""Slumber Party Massacre II"" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.

Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the ""Leif Maneuver"" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.

If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent ""Riki-Oh"" or the foundational ""Dead Alive."" If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give ""Darkness"" a go.

Quote o' the movie-

Vampire: It's die time!",Negative "I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.",Negative "Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a ""must see."" I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to ""No one"") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.

This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.

In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist?

I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.

This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.",Negative "I enjoyed this movie, granted it is mainly because I enjoy seeing Sean Connery act and this one has the added bonus of having Ed Harris and Lawrence Fishburne in it too. The story has a grandma seeking out Connery's assistance because her grandson is in prison and she says he was wrongly convicted. At first it seems there may have been some racist aspects of the case, however it later turns out the main officer on the case was black himself and it seems he did some rather bad things to coerce a confession out of the boy. Well the boy tries to point to another killer locked up in the same prison, one who is about to be put to death. He is a particularly nasty person too, as he takes a lot of joy in what he did, writing the relatives of his victims and trying to get people to mail them. A lot of twists and turns in this one with some of it being somewhat unexpected. Me I just enjoyed Sean Connery's character trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. The movie also made me mad in areas, especially when you find out what ultimately happened. You get very good interplay between Connery and Harris and Connery and Fishburne as they all shine rather well in this one. In the end this one makes for a rather good suspense/thriller.",Positive "While I have a great respect for Disney's animated films, as of late they haven't really been what I would call ""must-see"". Atlantis looked intriguing from the first movie poster and trailer, and thankfully lived up to my expectations.

Atlantis is a more ""mature"" Disney film in the sense that it lacks songs (a very unusual trait for a Disney film indeed), and is focused more on action and discovery than any other recent Disney offering. The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth's core, is fantastic, presented as desolate caverns with ruins, and then slowly developing into actual ecosystems, which, while usually containing some reminder of harshness, become more and more intriguing until the tropical paradise itself is reached. The presentation of simply Atlantis' landscape and setting, without some expendable cheery song, gave the kingdom a much more beautiful and intriguing appearance. The inclusion of an Atlantean language, as well as attempts to connect it into the mythology of real-life ancient civilizations adds to this, and works fairly well.

Also, with the exception of some scenes involving Mole's practical jokes, there didn't seem to be much of a ""childish"" element that I usually associate with Disney films. Instead, the main elements were the struggle to get to Atlantis, and the constant discovery that occurred at Atlantis, as Milo the outsider was able to learn all he ever needed to know about the place by helping the Atlanteans discover parts of their own history that they didn't know about. Part of this involves the Atlantean ""weaponry"", which is used in a very action-packed climax which is, for lack of a better word, quite exciting.

Granted, not all of the story makes full sense, and the film doesn't feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects, but, aside from the Toy Story movies, this is the most entertaining Disney film I've seen in years.",Positive "This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.

The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.

The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.",Negative "Just got through watching this version of ""Samhain"", and even though I still like it, it's nothing like the ""rough cut"" version I have. If you check the message board, you'll see an apology from the director for this cut down version, 79 minutes., and he says he had nothing to do with this R-rated trimmed down edit with a completely new screwed up ending. Christian really doesn't need to distant himself that much, because the basic gore elements still stand up, even though highly trimmed down. This is a damn shame, because this had the potential of being one of the goriest and best gore films in years. It still has the porn stars, and the inbreds, and some of the extreme gore can at least be partially seen. I'm just glad I have that ""rough cut"", because to me, it's a jewel for any gorehounds library. Christian Viel definitely has the skill and vision to deliver the goods, and hopefully his next project will be better produced. The idiots had a near classic in their hands, and screwed it up for everybody. ""Samhain"" may be one of the most controversial and mishandled horror movies ever, and too bad gorehounds didn't get to see what the director intended.

********************************************* Just so you know what you missed, this is my review based upon the ""work print"" of SAMHAIN.

The movie runs a little over 90 minutes and has no chapter stops. There is absolutely NO music soundtrack, and some of the scenes have no audio on the dialog, because I think they are meant to be looped in later. However, most of the movie does have audio with sound affects, and when an effect or scene is missing, a message appears as a cue for insertion when the movie is completed. It's exactly as it says, a ""Rough Cut"", BUT the only uncut version of ""Samhain"" you are ever likely to see. Reason, because the gore is extremely graphic, much more than even an NC-17 would allow. Yes there are a few porn stars, but they are just there for the killing, and to add a little sugar and spice. The story is pretty standard, American tourists on a vacation in Ireland and end up staying in a home in the middle of the woods. An area that is heavy on folklore, involving the ancient Druids and the celebration of Samhain, or as we call it Halloween. (spooky)

The movie starts off with a HUGE dose of gore, as a camping couple is attacked by one of the local inbred mutants. This is a great gore scene, as the guy find his girl hanging from a cliff, with her crying for help. All he sees is her head, arms, and shoulders hanging in front of him and when he pulls her up, she has been completely sliced in two. This is what I would call EXTREME GORE, with entrails, blood, and severed limbs all over the place. We are in Herschell Gordon Lewis territory here folks, except the effects look much more realistic. I'm going to just skip the story, because it's your standard stalk and kill plot.

The next gore scene is something to behold, as the boyfriend from the first killing is taken to a cave like location (TCM-2 stuff), and bound to a table. This geek then cuts all of his limbs off (off camera, with a cue to insert a scene), and then we see his torso on a barbecue pit, turning slowly over a fire, and the torso has a hard-on (if you can believe that). Yes, very bad taste, gross, gruesome, you find the right word, and it will probably fit too.

Then later Jenna Jameson, her beautiful body and all, is cut from neck to crotch, and all her entrails are pulled out in graphic glee, and her blood drains into a pot. Yummy, a real turn on huh?

But the best gore scene happens inside the house, and I have to admit, this is one of the best gore scenes I have seen. This guy (doesn't matter who) is caught from behind from a geek, and cut open at the ass hole. The geek then puts his hands in and rips out all the guys entrails, intestines, and what the hell ever else there is, right from his asshole. This goes on FOREVER, as the guy is screaming and more and more innards are pulled out laying all over the bathroom floor. This is so extreme, so over the top, that I found myself laughing all to hell. Obviously, you will NEVER EVER see this scene on a proper DVD, IMO, along with most of the other really extreme gore scenes.

So, what to think of all of this. Well, first of all, even though I doubt this movie would ever be released in this totally uncut presentation, it makes this ""Rough Cut"" a rare jewel for gorehounds. Yes, it's a little difficult at first, with no soundtrack, a few scenes to still be inserted, and credits that have missing names all over the place. But that's what makes this so unique, and I wouldn't trade it for anything right now. Extreme gore, yes yes, extreme extreme gore. This makes ""Haute Tension"" look like a Disney movie.",Positive "Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson

(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can

run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the ""doll"" he chose was Sarah

Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes

Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double

wedding.

The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon

Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't

sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original

Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this.",Positive "Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.

It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'

As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.",Negative "I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out",Negative "beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.

The characters basically make no sense most of the time.

The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.

The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.

He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.

It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.

Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.

A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.

Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.

We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.

Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.

Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.

He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.

Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.

It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.

The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.

The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.

2 stars",Negative "This was a complete disappointment. The acting isn't bad, but the production was just so bad that at times I felt I needed to stop it, but I sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. It is o.k. if you are o.k. with cheesy moral plots and don't mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues Whitman. If you want a cheesy fictional story go for it.",Negative "I just finished watching this movie and I found it was basically just not funny at all.

I'm an RPG Gamer (computer type, none of the DnD tabletop stuff) but I found none of the jokes in this funny at all.

Some of the scenes seemed to drag out a lot (tilt and zoom could've been cut down to 5seconds rather than over a minute) and it feels as though the director was just trying to fill in time.

I think I laughed a total of 2-3 times in the entire movie.

The acting itself wasn't all that bad, around the standard that a B Grade movie should have.

I'd suggest not bothering with this movie unless you're a huge DnD fan and even then it would probably be best to steer clear of it.",Negative "I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as ""Steamy Romance"" I was a little bit skeptical. ""Steamy""? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.

Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.

I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.

I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed.",Positive "This is probably the best television show I've ever seen. I first saw it on Comedy Central several years ago. At the time I was unaware that it had been dramatically edited and was shown out of order, and having just watched all three series in order and unedited (thank you internet and your wondrous ""series of tubes"") I am SO GLAD I rediscovered it! I think Comedy Central sort of picked and chose their way through series one and two to make a ""season""......and I tried to get friends and family to watch it, but nobody really seemed to like it (I need new friends). So, on my own, I made the best out of it that I could. Even when I felt like it was waning a bit, I still felt compelled to continue watching. Years after when I discovered Little Britain, I immediately recognized Pauline from LoG as having influenced Marjorie in Fat Fighters. Also, I love the idea of writers who act the entire show....(not new, but done impeccably here). LB has nothing on LoG! (No offense, Matt & David....Love you)! This is indeed a darkly comedic piece of genius. Serial murder, implied cannibalism.....you name it and it's probably found in this wonderful, unique piece of TV art. The location shots from the very first scene themselves are chilling and seem to beckon you to the town of Royston Vasey.....You'll Never Leave! I think my favorite character would have to be Tubbs, but each character as portrayed has it's own ""charm"". My least favorite was Papa Lazarous, that was until he re-surfaced in series three (clever and wholly unexpected)! It's best to watch several episodes in a row as it drives the continuity and as I said before, becomes so compelling (while repulsing) that you really CAN'T stop watching. This is not for those with weak stomachs, kids, conservatives or Grandma (unless you've got one saucy granny)! I have always loved British TV, particularly comedies, from Monty Python to Benny Hill, Red Dwarf to Keeping Up Appearances, Absolutely Fabulous and the British originals Coupling and The Office (but not their US counterparts....sorry). This is unlike any of those in that it completely redraws the line between what's funny and what's just sick and twisted. Nothing, NOTHING on US TV has ever come close to this level of entertainment. US broadcast TV is so sad and lame, I can barely stand to watch ANY of it. It's kind of sad that even our cable channels don't have the guts to show unedited versions of this gem (your loss, Comedy Central). Thankfully there are shows like this one that come from the ""across the pond"" that redeem the entire medium every decade or so. Basic cable here in the US has been making tiny steps the last few years in confidently ""crossing lines"" with more graphic sexual content, drug use and adult language, but they are still years away from just deciding to be Adults about showing real life, adult behavior (instead of just murder obsession and blowing things up, sheesh, it's like the same basic show format for the past 35 years)! Don't even get me started on US sitcoms! Waste of time and lots of wasted money......did you know that ""According to Jim"" has been on the air for 10 years??? 10 YEARS?? Anyway... Watch this show, get it on DVD, do what you must and then make your friends watch it as well! You've never seen anything like it. There are three specials that I have not watched yet....I'm saving them to spring on my best friend next time he visits. He'll watch them, even if I have to chain him up and paint him with Excrement! Lines and lines and lines and lines! Note that series three departs from one and two....the greater town seems to fall away to concentrate on newer characters, the laugh track is gone (thank bloody hell), the theme is more band and less orchestra and a bit of the story takes place outside of Royston Vasey. Don't be thrown by any of that as by the end, the series has preserved the quiet perversity first demonstrated in series one and two. I think these four guys have created something sort of undefinable. Brilliant, confident and absolutely demented. You will want to re-watch it again and again. It's amazing that in 5 seconds of screen time they can go from cheap sight-gag to horrifying blasphemy then end with a single actors close-up facial expression. If ever I were to meet any of the writer/performers, I'd implore them not to recreate it or try to top it.....I'd just say ""Can I help you at all?"" (Then they'd probably slap me, so I'd ask them to sign the slap-mark)! 10 out of 10",Positive "There are just so many things wrong with this movie.

To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to ""The Wiz"" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.

Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.

Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the ""new Ursula""?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.

Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.

All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.

Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.",Negative "Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!",Negative "I rarely write reviews for IMDb.com, but I feel compelled to warn potential viewers that this movie is terrible. Just terrible. I like Shaw Bros. movies (I'm not a hater.), and I had high expectations for this one since I found it listed on many ""10 Best Kung Fu/Martial Arts Movies"" websites. (I'm now convinced that those 10 Best lists are all cut-and-paste jobs.) First of all, there's barely any action in the film. Most of the movie consists of talking about the plot, which is an amazing feat because it's thin at best. And the action itself may have been impressive back in 1978, but it's routine by today's standards. A special warning to Netflix users: the DVD they ship is terrible; the picture is horrendous and it's not even 16:9 enhanced.",Negative "My favorite part of this film was the old man's attempt to cure his neighbor's ills by putting the strong medicine in his bath. There is more than a sense of family, there is a sense of community.",Positive "Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!

The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.

What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.

But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the ""badass"" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment ""They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!"" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.

So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a ""plant"", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.",Negative "The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.

Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.

While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!

Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.

I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Pelišky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.",Positive "I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.

The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.",Negative "When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is ""What do you think of such-and-such movie?"" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before ""The Convent"" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful ""horror"" is about as scary as a box of kittens.

Following well-worn clichés, ""The Convent"" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about?

The only thing that saves ""The Convent"" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the ""Buffy The Vampire Slayer"" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.

""The Convent"" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like ""Scary Movie"" or ""Shaun Of The Dead"" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the ""so bad that it's good"" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but ""The Convent"" really is a pile of unholy crap.",Negative "best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.",Positive "I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.

Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.

This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...

I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10",Positive "This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.

I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.

And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show.",Positive "Before all, I'd like to point out that I have not read the book, so there was no chance I'd be disappointed in that aspect. The major flaw I spotted was historical detail, with several cars, trains, clothes, etc. I think don´t belong at that time.

***Possible spoiler*****

The technical aspect of the film is ok, nothing to brag about. But the acting, I think, was terrific. I don't have no experience in acting, still I can't believe how people can consider this terrible! Maybe they've only seen two movies (ever), and the other one must have been very good indeed!

I specially liked Jeremy Irons, and really understood his character, someone who crawled up the social ladder with very hard work, then fights against those who would take his life's work from him, only he gets so involved in this fight, he doesn't realize reason is no longer at his side, and he ends up a beaten, disappointed man. Irons made this so believable, I sympathized with the character despite his brutality.

After Jeremy Irons, Winona Ryder is also wonderful as a romantic young women, who is drawn into the revolutionary ideals by her boyfriend (Banderas, he had an under-developed part, I think), and Glenn Close was also very good. Meryl Streep had an average performance, it was not bad, just not up to the standards of the other actors. Watch out for Miguel Guilherme, a fine Portuguese actor, between so many stars.

In contrast to today's movies, here only the interpretations, only people matter, but at the same time, it is not a pretensious film, too worried trying to be intellectual. The best proof I really liked it, I'm writing a review 7 years later.",Positive "I enjoyed this movie so much that I watched it twice and that is something to say about a documentary. The musical score, cinematography and sound are absolutely stunning as you might expect from an Imax production. Even though it is shot for those huge Imax theaters, it looks and sounds wonderful on my home system. In fact this would make a perfect DVD to demo your system.

The subject is also so fascinating. It is about Mario Andretti and his son Michael. I was already a fan of Mario because he is the best racecar drive in history since he is the only person to win the CART Championship, F1 Championship, The Daytona 500 and the Indianapolis 500. The script follows the path of two cars very important to the father and son. The first car is found in a chicken coop and turns out to be the first roadster that Mario ever drove and we follow restoration to gleaming perfection. The other car is Michael's new racecar and we follow it from cutting the mold through the race season. Imax lends just the right magic to make car construction entertaining and fascinating.

Paul Newman, who was Michael Amoretti's team owner at the time this movie was made, narrates the film. His anecdotes and witticism, drawn from many years as an owner and driver, lends much to the production.

The main feature is the race scenes. Turn up the volume here! There is something about riding along at over 200 mph and the musical score that totally draws you into the screen for an experience you will not forget. Wow!

The final magical element is the humanity of the Andretti family. This god of the racing world, Mario Andretti, is loving father who proudly watches over his son's career. They work together so well that every father and son should see this. You can tell that they are a close family. I wish we could all have that experience.",Positive this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it.,Positive "I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.

This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.

2/10",Negative "This film sold for one-dollar at Wal-Mart on a DVD and so I do not feel like I lost anything for watching this film, except my TIME. Enjoyed the acting of Tom Hanks, (Robbie Wheeling), who was very young looking and gave an outstanding performance considering it was a horrible script. The story is about college students who decided to play the game Mazes & Monsters, only in a very realistic setting. Robbie Wheeling has had problems in the past playing this game at other colleges and is advised by his parents to leave the game alone and get good grades. Robbie meets a very nice gal and has a romantic fling with her and once he starts playing the game, he stops making love to her and acts like a Monk. There are some scenes in the film which are taken running around the former World Trade Center and also in the Observation floor and Roof area. It is rather sad viewing this part of the film where so many human beings died because of evil in the world. This is not a very good film, except for Tom Hanks trying to keep the film above the sinking level of entertainment.",Negative "Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since ""Men In Black"" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like ""I,Robot"" and ""Men In Black 2"". 4/10",Negative "Maybe it wasn't that good as a whole, but the second episode, which was the first one I say, was so memorable I still remember it today. I became a fan of Dick Francis. I would recommend it if you are interested in horse racing and mysteries.

The cockney slang of the sidekick, Chico Barnes, is a lot more amusing to those of us who have never been close to hearing London's Bow Bells, but the leads are attractive and the shows were interesting.

Sid Halley was one of Francis' more interesting characters, and the show actually minimizes some of the difficulties with his hand. Interestingly, electronic hands of the sort used in the stories are apparently less functional for the user than the sort invented after World War II.",Positive """Moonstruck"" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.

The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.

The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up.",Positive "This is one of the best movies to come from Bollywood in years. Certainly the best this year until now. Indian to the core, the panoramic visuals, the heart-pleasing dialogs and the melodious and soft music make the movie an exceptional one. The apt depiction of Indianvalues and culture makes the viewer search for his/her roots in them and invigorates the mind and spirit with a sense of pride and a new lease on life.

This movie is for viewers who enjoy a call to their imagination and philosophical senses. If you like watching movies to get all your nerves excited through on-screen action, sex or terror, then this movie is not for you, because you will find that the movie is not full of 90 degrees twists in it. It is as simple a story for a movie as it can get. But that's exactly where the art of the movie lies. One gets a real life experience, and the best thing is, this experience is one full of values and hope. It is about the positive side of life, about the sweet things that God has showered on humans, as against the regressive movies that insist on showing dons, terrorists and underworlds. This is not about things and people that have gone bad. It is about the goodness that still persists, and that keeps the world running. Of course, every genre of movies is respectable but it takes a lot of courage and talent to come up with a movie that swims against the current and tries to open the eyes of the public to the hidden realities and truths.

Having said that, here's more...

The movie is the journey of a couple from their engagement to their arranged marriage - yes, that's right, it is an arranged marriage and the couple come to know each other only through their parents, and learn to love each other. The 6 month gap between engagement and marriage is a long time, not full of ""enticing"" happenings, but one that nurtures the growing love and devotion of the couple to each other. They learn together the importance of their relationship and of this invaluable period of their lives, and work to strengthen the bonds of marriage. But have these been strengthened enough? Their relationship will face the test of not only time but also fortune. Will they pass this test? That is what ""Vivah"" is about.",Positive "This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of ""The Sixth Sense"" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests.",Negative "THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most ""movergoers"" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7"" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office ""media spin."" The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.",Positive "True, the idea for this TV series may have sprung from the immense success which Ally McBeal is enjoying worldwide, even here in Germany. However, this said, Edel & Starck is very different from Ally McBeal in many ways.

The two main characters work beautifully together. Felix Edel (Felix Noble), played by well-known German actor, Christoph M. Ohrt and Sandra Starck (Sandra Strong - Noble & Strong, get it ???), played by charming Rebecca Immanuel, exchange quick romantic repartees and continually spy on each other while engaging in sitcom-like criminal cases in Berlin and surroundings. Further, they are aided by a magnificent cast of co-stars, most notably their secretary, played by Isabel Tuengerthal, who is a rare gem with GREAT comic potential. Also the shady wheeler-dealer, Otto, and the noble childhood pal of Felix, Frank, work very well, not to forget Sandra's best friend and room-mate, Patricia, played by the beautiful Barbara Demmer.

All-in-all a joy to watch on Monday nites: no wonder that the series and its stars have received several prizes. Will Felix get Sandra ?

I hope that we will have to wait for many more episodes to find out......",Positive "When you are in a gloomy or depressed mood, go watch this film. It shows a lot of beauty and joy in a very simple everyday setting, and it is very encouraging, in particular from a feminist and a humanist perspective.

When you know both the Turkish language and either the Danish or the German language, go watch the film in any case. Half of the dialog is Danish in the original, synchronized to German in the translated version, the other half Turkish, subtitled in Danish or German, respectively. When i watched it in Mannheim, Germany, the reaction of the Turkish-speaking audience proved that there must be a lot of humor in the Turkish dialog, which, deplorably, mostly escaped me, being only imperfectly rendered in the subtitles. Still, the film is interesting even if you lack knowledge of the Turkish.

Esthetically, the movie is playing a lot on the theme of speed and slowness. On first sight, there is lots of corporeal movement fast as lightning, making it a quick, an agitated film. In particular, even though this is a Kung Fu movie, watch out for the running scenes, beautifully expressing a wealth of emotions. But there are quite a few very slow, emotionally intense scenes, too. And above all, the characters develop at a much slower pace than you would expect in a drama about the coming of age; still, there is some movement in the characters to: Closely watch the villain Omar, whose part and acting i liked very much.

The contrast of speed and stillness nicely contributes to the depiction of human rage and dignity - shown at once, in the same characters, at the same time.",Positive "The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being ""just"" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!

People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!

In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!

Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10",Negative "This is a beautiful film. The true tale of bond between father and son. This is by far, Tom Hanks at his finest. Tom Hanks is really out of the box in this movie. He usually has the nice guy roles. Yet in this film,he comes off in this film as a bit gritty, but still emerges smelling like a rose, even until the very last scene, the assassination of his character. The cast of this movie was well put together. I also love the part when there is total silence when Tom Hanks' character shoots and kills all of the men in Mr. Rooney's group. There is something chilling and yet profound about no sound in that scene, just simply emotion. I love the look on John Rooney, Paul Newman's character's face when he realizes even before seeing him, that it is Tom Hanks's character getting revenge, and he knows his fate has come. The first time I saw this movie I was blown away and knew I had to go out and get the video and I since have, adding it to my collection of my all time favorite movies.

Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, so this film has a special place in me.",Positive "I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.",Positive "The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a ""thriller"" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.",Negative "a movie that attempts to be far smarter than its makers are capable of producing. the movie twists and turns through miriad plot ""surprises"" at a desperate attempt to kep the audience guessing, offcourse puncturing the ""plot"" with steamy scenes they thought would help it along.

james belushi is involved in this pseudo-intellectual attempt and just sleep walks through the movie. the same applies for the other ""actors"". the plot is quite silly and tacky. whih in itelf is not such a crime, but towards the end, the tremendous plot-twists get very tiresome and boring.

however, the movie does manage to generate some interest in the middle. in all worth a lazy watch on a really boring day, but don't fret if you miss this one.

a rather lame 4!",Negative "As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical",Positive "Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.

A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as ""the moon"" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.

The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).

Enjoy.",Negative "Over the last 20 years the majority of British films are about how horribly poverty stricken the UK is and how our youth doesn't stand a chance of a good life whilst they live on the mean streets of British cities. The British film industry is obsessed with the idea of 'broken Britain'. Trainspotting, This is England, Kidulthood, Football Factory, Kes and From London to Brighton.

Bullet Boy is just another British movie added to that list. The main character expresses a desire to go straight yet he still insists on hanging around with dead beats who carry guns and fight with gang members over nothing. I was never convinced that he did want to go straight as there was nothing stopping him pursuing an education or a trade. In fact it would have been a breath of fresh air if he had of gone straight and we had a character who turned his life around. Instead he spends his time helping his friend trying to commit murder. I felt no sympathy when he is predictably shot by another teen at the end of the film, which is sad because at the beginning of the film I really liked the entire family and their desire for success. I believe the makers missed a great chance to show the world that success belongs to those who are willing to really strive for it (like the Pursuit of Happiness).

I know the purpose of this film was to try and paint a realistic picture of what life is like for black teens living in working class areas of Britain but don't we already have enough films in the UK with that very same plot? Isn't it time these talented producers and writers give Britains youth something to aspire to and show them a better life is just around the corner?

I applaud the makers of Bullet Boy for not loading the film full of mindless violence in order to try and get success through shock factors (like Kidulthood, Football Factory) but at the same time this movie offers nothing new to a long list of British films that are effectively dull and depressing to watch. There is no happy ending to this movie or any of the others I have mentioned.",Negative "a pure reality bytes film. Fragile, beautiful and amazing first film of the director. Represented Spain on the Berlinale 2002. Some people has compared the grammar of the film with Almodovar's films...Well, that shouldn't be a problem...",Positive "I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter.

Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing.

The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.

There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie.

While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.

Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable.",Negative "My favorite ""Imperialism"" movie and one of the best action-adventure flicks of all time. Grant, McLaglen and Fairbanks dominate the screen with daring-do and wise cracks to please all but the most ""PC"" of film goers. Memorable scenes abound -- the 3 sergeants and their 20 sepoys fighting off hundreds of Thugs; MacChesney & Cutter giving Bobby Coote the spiked punch (""save some for the elephant""); Cutter to MacChesney -- ""I'm an expedition""; Din breaking Cutter out of jail, with a fork (""what do you think I'm trying to break out of? A bleedin' pudding?!) And the incredible temple scene with Cutter singing and then annoucing, bold as brass -- ""All right, you're all under arrest!""

I could go on, but suffice it to say I try to catch this film whenever it is on. For armchair adventurers and generals, it's hard to imagine a better 2 hours.",Positive "Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.

This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this ""what the hell"" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.",Negative "Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...

Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.

Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.

With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.

Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant.",Positive "I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...

Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.

So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a ""hot"" girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of ""hot"".

Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from ""hot"". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.

But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or ""G-Girl"" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the ""G"" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.

The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's ""passion"" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the ""I'm thinking really hard to understand this"" way.

When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a ""whore"" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.

Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.

Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie.",Negative "Very good point there : ""only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb"" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.

Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;)..",Positive "I gotta say, Clive Barker's Undying is by far the best horror game to have ever been made. I've played Resident Evil, Silent Hill and the Evil Dead and Castlevania games but none of them have captured the pure glee with which this game tackles its horrific elements. Barker is good at what he does, which is attach the horror to our world, and it shows as his hand is clearly everywhere in this game. Heck, even his voice is in the game as one of the main characters. Full of lush visuals and enough atmosphere to shake a stick at, Undying is the game to beat in my books as the best horror title. I just wish that this had made it to a console system but alas poor PC sales nipped that one in the bud.",Positive "A LAUREL & HARDY Comedy Short. The Boys arrive to sweep the chimneys at the home of Professor Noodle, a mad scientist who's just perfected his rejuvenation serum. Stan & Ollie proceed with their DIRTY WORK, spreading destruction inside the house and on the roof. Then the Professor wants to try out his new potion...

A very funny little film. The ending is a bit abrupt, but much of the slapstick leading up to it is terrific. Especially good is Stan & Ollie's contest of wills at opposite ends of the chimney. That's Lucien Littlefield as the Professor.",Positive Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????

If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets!,Positive "You know the story..Pretty kids alone in the woods,when BAM!something starts cutting them up.

Well this crap is no different.A bunch of kids return to a cabin where the male leads twin brother disappeared for years before.Suddenly an ""UNKOWN CREATURE"" stars cutting them up,and their only help is a doctor/biker.

To say this film was bad is an understatement,it's smut! The acting was horrible.

The creature looked very cheesy. And as all films do these days they try to get you with a twist ending,which they do not!

There is one bright spot to this film- LOST star Maggie Grace as the female lead.",Negative There are plenty of reviews on this page that will explain this movie's details far more eloquently than I could; but I would like to offer a simple review for those who occasionally go to the movies for more than entertainment. Raising Victor Vargas is so true you will believe it. This flick gets inside your head.,Positive "Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.

Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their ""jobs"" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...

For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.

What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.

Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.",Negative "Superb comic farce from Paul Mazursky, Richard Dreyfuss, plays Jack Noah a fairly successful actor- who is On location shooting a film in a fictitious Latin American banana republic Parador,Ruled by the Fascist, Alfonse Sims who unfortunately has succumbed of a heart attack after indulging in too many local cocktails! Raul Julia plays the oily chief of police who forces the reluctant Noah To impersonate the Just deceased dictator who Noah bears a remarkable resemblance, Sonia Braga plays the dictator's glamorously lusty mistress, who gives Noah a few lessons in how to 'act' like a dictator, Jonathan Winter's literally rounds off the cast as a CIA man In Parador posing as a hammock salesman. Can Noah win over the people of Parador? and hold off the rebels? And give the performance of a lifetime without losing his in the process? Sammy Davis Jnr,has a cameo as himself who amusingly croons the national anthem of Parador as well as Begin the Beguine, Frog Number one(Fernando Rey pops up as a kindly servant, Charo is also on hand as A busty maid, The score by Maurice Jarre,is excellent.",Positive "I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)

A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.

Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:

Chicago Tribune

San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Bay Guardian

(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)",Negative "This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours",Negative "This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.

I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.

The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.

The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.

I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.

I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.",Negative "As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.",Positive "What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.",Negative "he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie .",Negative "I was first introduced to ""Eddie"" by friends from ""across-the-pond"" who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!

Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and ""Do you have a Flag?""",Positive "This is one of those ""so bad it is good"" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.",Negative "I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a ""kids movie""? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.",Negative "This is my third comment here attempting to connect two legendary movie comedy teams: Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello. The connection here is the year 1940. That's the date that the former had their last movie from their longtime home studio of Hal Roach. I'll mention the significance of the latter later on. Besides being the last time Stan and Ollie worked at the Lot of Fun, it's also the final time they would appear with such familiar supporting players like Charlie Hall and James Finlayson who appeared in most of their films. It's also the last time Art Lloyd would serve as their cameraman and Marvin Hatley-who composed their theme song which would be known as ""The Cuckoo Song (Dance of the Cuckoos)""-their score. And it would be the very last time Stan Laurel would be allowed to exercise complete creative control over what goes on film. If there is a more gag-laden structure than usual in this L & H film, it's nice to know most of those gags are indeed funny. That includes most of the sound and visual effects, the latter provided by longtime Roach staffer Roy Seawright. In this one, Ollie has ""hornophobia"" from working at a noisy horn factory so Dr. Finlayson prescribes going out to sea for his rest. Ollie doesn't like to go boating so Stan suggests they just rent one that's docked so they wouldn't have to go anywhere. After they find one they like, we find out that convict Nick Grainger (Richard Cramer) has just escaped...I'll stop there and say this was as good a finale for L & H's longtime home as one could hope for. It's hilarious mostly from beginning to end and knowing this would be their last for the man partly responsible for their teaming is indeed poignant when one thinks of it. Oh, and I have a couple more lasts to mention: it's the final film appearance of both Harry Bernard, who plays a harbor patrolman after years of encountering Stan and Ollie as a policeman, and that of Ben Turpin, the cross-eyed comic who was born in New Orleans which is a couple of hours away from my current hometown of Baton Rouge, whose second L & H appearance this was having previously ""married"" the boys in Our Wife. The latter performer especially has a genuine comic moment. All right, I mentioned 1940 being the year Stan and Ollie had their last movie released from Hal Roach Studios. It was also the first year that a comedy team, both born in the state of New Jersey, would make their first picture at what would be their home studio, Universal. The director of that movie would be the same one that guided L & H in The Flying Deuces the previous year. His name was A. Edward Sutherland. P.S. It was during this filming that script supervisor Virginia Lucille Jones had an accident involving a rolled-up carpet. That incident caused Oliver ""Babe"" Hardy to send her roses to her hospital room. They fell in love and married on March 7, 1940. It lasted until Babe's death in 1957.",Positive "Barbra Streisand's debut television special is still a pinnacle moment in entertainment history - in any media. Cleverly divided into three separate acts (to minimize the interruption of commercial breaks), Streisand made the bold-yet-masterful decision to drop the typical variety show format of the time (which is why there is no guest stars nor forced banter) and carry the entire show on her shoulders alone. The risky move paid off enormously, as MY NAME IS BARBRA set a new standard for musical programming on television.

Filmed in glorious black-and-white (which actually adds to the effectiveness of the show), MY NAME IS BARBRA is flawlessly-conceived and impressively shot. However, what makes the show truly transcendent is Streisand herself. Watching the then-23 year old performer navigate herself through the show's 55 minute runtime is nothing less than thrilling. She is in fantastic voice (and even performs the entire first and third acts live), and gives first evidence of the immense star power that would soon follow her to the big screen.

The special's biggest asset is it's boldness in allowing Streisand to simply stand on stage and sing some great songs. After the powerful opening performance of ""Much More"" (with a brief opening snippet from Leonard Bernstein's ""My Name Is Barbara""), Barbra proceeds to wander through a multi-level studio set performing a frantic version of the Disney classic ""I'm Late."" In between verses of ""I'm Late,"" Streisand stops at various levels of the set to sing some terrific numbers such as the haunting ""Make Believe"" and the thundering ""How Does the Wine Taste?"" Halfway through the Act I, Barbra re-enters her own childhood to the strains of ""A Kid Again,"" and then gives highly energetic performances of ""I'm Five"" and ""Sweet Zoo"" while romping among an over-sized set. The illusion is eventually shattered, however, as Streisand finds herself out of the fantasy and back in the real world. She then sings about this lost childhood innocence in the lovely ""Where Is the Wonder?"" Streisand then dashes out onto a platform stage surrounded by an entire room-full of musicians and performs a rousing rendition of ""People"" before the thunderous applause of a live studio audience.

Act II of the special begins with Streisand hamming it up for the studio audience with a campy rendition of ""I've Got the Blues,"" before delivering a comedy monologue about ""Pearl from Istanbul."" Streisand then heads off to Bergdorf Goodman's department store, which allows her to sing a medley of poverty songs while parading around in some of the store's elegant fashions. This segment is the brightest highlight of the special for many fans and critics. Some high points of the Act II medley include Streisand singing a restrained version of ""Second Hand Rose"" to the audience, appearing as a Latin bullfighter to the tune of ""Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out,"" and portraying a frustrated paperboy while mugging to ""Brother, Can You Spare a Dime."" The third Act of the special is a straight concert, with no set pieces or concepts. Streisand is a performer who really thrives on the concert stage, and this segment is the most thrilling moment of the special. Streisand enters belting out an almost gravity-defying rendition of ""When the Sun Comes Out,"" and continues to amaze the viewer with a lovely version of THE YEARLING ballad ""Why Did I Choose You,"" a scorching performance of ""Lover Come Back to Me,"" and an impassioned medley of three songs form FUNNY GIRL. Streisand really outdoes herself, however, with a phenomenal rendition of the Fanny Brice/Billie Holiday standard ""My Man,"" which instantly became on of the singer's best-loved signature songs.

Streisand performs her immortal ballad version of ""Happy Days Are Here Again"" as the closing credits roll by on the left-hand side of the screen. The iconic finish to the number reaffirms to the viewer that he or she has indeed seen something truly special. MY NAME IS BARBRA was a huge rating triumph when first aired, and it eventually picked up five Emmy awards in addition to spawning two Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack albums. Watching it all again, it's absolutely no surprise.",Positive """Yes, Georgio"" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. ""Yes, Georgio"" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.",Positive "Having been driven out of the house and into the theater by the sweltering heat, I could not have been more pleased. The Road to Perdition, directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty), is destined to become one of the greatest movies of all time. Perhaps I'm just getting old; perhaps I've just seen the same themes recycled time and again. But this movie is indeed different.

The story opens with young Michael Sullivan Jr. facing out to the sea, contemplating the duality of his father's legacy -- one of the best men to ever live, one of the most evil. This duality snakes its way throughout the movie. The story revolves around crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) and Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), the young man Rooney once took in and who now serves as his personal ""Angel of Death."" Rooney is tied by blood to his own son, but tied by love and loyalty to Michael. Young Michael Jr., intrigued by the stories he reads, steals away in his father's car one night while Dad goes off to ""work"" with Connor Rooney, heir to the family ""business."" Connor lets the situation get out of hand, and what was meant only to be a warning turns into murder -- witnessed by Michael Jr. Upon the discovery that young Michael has seen what he should not have seen, the plot is set in motion as conflicting loyalties collide. Soon, Michael Sr. is on the run with his young son, pursued by contract killer Harlen ""The Reporter"" Maguire (Jude Law).

I will disclose no further details in order to avoid any potential spoilers. However, I strongly encourage viewers to examine the many dualities that present themselves in the movie: Problems between sons and fathers (Michael Sr & Jr., John Rooney & son Connor), between the world at home and the world at ""work"", between good and evil, between those who pretend to be men of god and those who really are, between ""clean"" money and ""dirty"", between the town of Perdition and Perdition as hell. And along the way, savor the visual brilliance of cinematographer Conrad L. Hall (9 nominations, 2 oscars for best cinematography): rain pouring off fedoras, shots through mirrors (especially on swinging doors), tommy-gun flashes from out of the shadows, absent any sound. Not only has 75-year-old Hall given us perhaps the best cinematic product of his career, but 77-year-old Paul Newman offers one of his best performances ever.

Yes ... I may be getting old. But I've seen a lot ... and this is fresh and invigorating. The Road to Perdition presents a lasting and loving tribute to the gangster genre, to films of the 40s, to dark comic-book figures lurking in the darkness, to villains and heroes, to American film in general. Go see it!",Positive "Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.

I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.

My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.

And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better.",Negative "The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!!",Positive "What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.",Negative "Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.

Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.

Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.

There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively ""proper"" and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.

The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.

Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29 – 30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.

And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of ""Tom and Jerry"" fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.

As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character.",Positive "Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.

Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.

It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.

Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.",Negative "I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.",Positive "You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.

I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.",Negative "You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for ""Bushy Bill"" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking ""pay-dirt"" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of ""Aqua Velva"" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe ""Leaves"" the ""Island"" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!",Negative "This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable ""gotcha!"" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like ""The Ring"") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.

This English-language version of ""The Grudge"" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.

Not recommended.",Negative "How The Grinch Stole Christmas instantly stole my heart and became my favorite movie almost from my very first viewing. Now, eight viewings later, it still has the same impact on me as it did the first time I saw it.

Screenwriters Jeffery Price & Peter S. Seaman of Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame do a fantastic job of adapting the story of The Grinch to the screen. Ron Howard's direction brought the story to full life, and Jim Carrey's typically energetic performance as The Grinch steals the show.

Some detractors of the film have claimed that it is not true to the spirit or principles of the original story. Having read the original story, I must say I cannot agree. The movie makes the very same point about Christmas and its true meaning as the original story. Indeed, it enhances the impact of the story by making it more personal by showing us how and why The Grinch became what he was.

*MILD SPOILERS* (They probably wouldn't ruin the movie for you... but if you haven't seen it yet and you're one of those who wants to know NOTHING about a story until you've seen it, you should skip the next two paragraphs.)

I think just about everyone can relate to The Grinch's terrible experiences in school. I think all of us, at one time or another, were the unpopular one in school who was always picked on. I know I was... and that's why I personally had so much sympathy for The Grinch and what he went through.

And Cindy Lou Who's naive idealism, believing that nobody can be all bad, was heart rending. When everyone else had turned their backs on The Grinch out of fear and ignorance, Cindy Lou was determined to be his friend. If only everyone could have such an attitude.

In fact, I think the only thing that might've made the film a little better would have been to further tone down the adult humor and content. It was already pretty restrained, but any of this adult humor (like when The Grinch slammed nose first into Martha May Whovier's cleavage) just doesn't fit in a story like this.

This one's well on its way to being a Christmas classic, taking a richly deserved place alongside the book and the Chuck Jones cartoon as a must-see of every Christmas season.",Positive "This movie was an impressive one. My first experience with a foreign film, it was neither too long, nor too complex. I myself enjoyed the subtitles; and the plot was surprisingly fresh. The story of an adult son visiting his elderly father and retarded brother after a long separation appeared cliched at first, but it proved to be very touching and realistic. There was also some subtle humor so as not to depress or bore the audience.",Positive "Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.

In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.

Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...

Sometimes it reminds a ""Scream"", but he definitely better, than both ""Screams"" sequels together.

And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet...",Positive "This really is an incredible film. Not only does it document the eternal struggle of indigenous and disenfranchised people to gain their rightful voice but it also shows the United States up for its dishonesty, subterfuge, and blatant disregard for human rights and self-determination. Chavez is shown as a very brave and charismatic leader struggling against what can only be characterized as a despicable elite devoid of any sense of proportion or justice. These filmmakers have recorded a coup unlike anything witnessed before.

And in the cross hairs we see the USA, once again pulling the strings and blurring all sense of reality. It's heart-breaking to watch the initial stages of the revolt knowing full well that the subversion of democracy that we're witnessing is a tool long used by successive American governments and their seemingly blinkered citizens. The footage makes it clear that this is not a manipulation of TV or generic footage but an active documentation of a people and its government fighting for its future. Truly a moving experience for anyone with a conscience. These Irish film makers deserve our gratitude. Long live Chavez.

We need to enshrine the notion that each country must be allowed to choose its government and to develop in ways that the majority sees fit. First phase in this process is the need to know what the realities of the situation are, and this documentary does a great job of doing just that.",Positive "When I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!

Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.

Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!

This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus!",Positive "Please! Do not waste any money on this movie. It really is nothing more than a boring German Blair Witch ripoff made by some high school kids. I couldn't finish watching it, and usually I like watching all kinds of B-movies. How on earth could they find a distributor for it?!!! Funny however: Check out Wikipedia for ""dark area"". The guy who wrote the entry must be completely out of his mind. Maybe he got loads of money from the producers. Money that should have been spend on actors, camera and editing. Even that wouldn't have helped, since there is absolutely no interesting idea behind this film. Unfortunately ""dark area"" has already gotten too much attention. Please, director, producer and author of this movie, STOP making movies like that...you are not doing yourself a favor. The world would be a better place without this film.",Negative "Military training films are becoming so common that they are becoming a genre unto themselves. Among the more prominent we have, `Officer and a Gentleman', `Top Gun', `GI Jane', and now `Men of Honor'. The fact that this one happened to be true doesn't change the fact that the formula is the same. This film is probably most like `GI Jane' since it focuses on the desegregation angle.

The story is actually quite inspirational and is probably the best human-interest story among those mentioned above. Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) is unquestionably a man of great courage and principle, and his strength of character shines through brightly in this film. Unfortunately, director George Tillman has tunnel vision in presenting the characters and eschews character development of various characters other than Brashear in favor of showing Brashear in a constant state of adversity. Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro) is a central figure, and except for the initial scene, the fistfight and a couple of scenes with his wife, we don't know much about him. For instance, Brashear sees the scars on Sunday's palms and we are to assume that he worked a plow, but there is no follow-up on that point. Mr. Pappy (Hal Holbrook) gets only one short scene by which we can judge him. The rest of his screen time shows him pacing around and ranting. If a director is going to make a human-interest story, he needs to humanize the characters.

Cuba Gooding Jr. gives an outstanding performance as Brashear. This is probably the best I've seen him. This is a role and a character that is far more complete than any part he has played before, and he rises to the occasion. In `Jerry Maguire', Rod Tidwell was a fascinating, but one-dimensional character with the depth of a rain puddle. Brashear is much more complex and grounded, and the issues he faces are life crises, making the part far more challenging. This is an excellent recovery from Gooding's last role in `Chill Factor', a film so dreadful that it was almost an act of professional suicide to take the part.

After a stint trying his hand as a comedian (`Analyze This', `The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle', `Meet The Parents'), Robert DeNiro is back to his dramatic roots with an outstanding performance. DeNiro isn't a bad comedian, he is just such a great dramatic actor that it seems like he shouldn't waste his time doing comedy. DeNiro endows Billy Sunday with a rock hard personality belying a tortured soul. It is a pleasure watching him work.

It seems every film I watch lately has Charlize Theron in it. I saw `The Legend of Bagger Vance', `Men of Honor' and `The Yards' right in a row and I was beginning to wonder if she had a part in every film in 2000 (actually, she only did five). This was a minor role for Theron, but she carried it off well and managed to stay with DeNiro step for step. David Keith, who co-starred with Richard Gere in `Officer and a Gentleman', has a cameo here

The DVD has some interesting special features, including reflections by the real Carl Brashear and some deleted scenes.

I enjoyed this film despite the hackneyed plot and the one-dimensional presentation. I rated it a 7/10. I'm a sucker for underdog stories and I have a fondness for stories where strength of character is the central theme. This film is particularly strong in both areas and brings us two memorable acting performances that compensate for some of the director's shortcomings.",Positive "My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.

Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.",Negative "Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.

Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.

(Spoilers)

So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.

Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up.

Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.

Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.

Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'.",Negative "Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.

Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...

For those who want to see sexy vampires only.",Negative "I saw this film first on my way home from Paris to Newark aboard Air France in August 1996. The film itself I believe is quite a masterpiece. It's the kind of film that people should be making. I still think Daniel Auteuil is one of the sexiest actors around. In this French film, he plays a divorced father and businessman who has lost his zest for life until he across a Down Syndrome man who lives in an institution with other Down Syndrome patients. The actors including the actor who actually has Down Syndrome create a believable friendship and relationship between these two unlikely men. Daniel's life and ours changes forever with the Down Syndrome man. He realizes that life is not just work and not play but for the living and loving and that's what life should be all about. The ending is kind of silly though but I still think it's one of my favorite movies. It's enough to bring a tear to your eye.",Positive "Xiao Chen Zhi Chun is a great movie, not only in the year it was shot but also now. It's an art movie which is not outdated even in 21st century. The director maintained a good narrative skill and thus made the story so smooth!

The movie reminds me of the later French new wave movie: Francois Truffaut's ""Femme d'a cote"" which is of the similar topic.",Positive "I just saw this episode this evening, on a recently-added presentation by one of our local independent channels, which now presents two episodes each weekday.

As the gentleman opined in the other, previous comment here, I agree this may not have been one of the best programs of the series, but I find it entertaining nonetheless.

My father was a friend of one of the principals (in my hometown, Cincinnati), for whom young Rod Serling had worked in the media there -- and I remember Dad telling how talented and creative he was remembered there. Overall ""Twilight Zone"" is certainly one of the true classics in television, and given its production during the height of the Cold War period, provides not only a view of this era in the country, but also (today) a nostalgic picture of production techniques, creative viewpoints and the actors of this era several decades ago.

* Minor ""spoiler.""*

This particular story depicts, as did other presentations in this series and elsewhere, a story where the locale is meant to provide a ""surprise"" ending. Sometimes the characters are on earth, from elsewhere, while the story at first implies at least one is an ""Earthling."" These usually contained the message (as here) of a situation prompted by the doomsday buttons having finally been pressed by the super powers during this Cold War period.

Viewed today, stories like this one provide a nostalgic look at this worldly viewpoint 4-5 decades ago, and still provide some food-for-thought. -- as did this episode.

While the dialog may not have stretched the considerable talents of the leads, it still presents a simple, important message, and a worthwhile 20-some minutes of entertainment and interest.",Positive "In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.",Negative People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.,Negative "I think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called ""weirdness"" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to ""open [their] eyes"" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the ""feel"" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' ""Good Vibrations"" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly ""right"" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+",Positive Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time,Negative "Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****",Negative "It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.

James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.

Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.

He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.

Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.

Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed.

That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.

That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.

The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.

Couldn't have hurt any.",Negative "There is a uk edition to this show which is rather less extravagant than the US version. The person concerned will get a new kitchen or perhaps bedroom and bathroom and is wonderfully grateful for what they have got. The US version of this show is everything that reality TV shouldn't be. Instead of making a few improvements to a house which the occupants could not afford or do themselves the entire house gets rebuilt. I do not know if this show is trying to show what a lousy welfare system exists in the US or if you beg hard enough you will receive. The rather vulgar product placement that takes place, particularly by Sears, is also uncalled for. Rsther than turning one family in a deprived area into potential millionaires, it would be far better to help the community as a whole where instead of spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars on one home, build something for the whole community ..... perhaps a place where diy and power tools can be borrowed and returned along with building materials so that everyone can benefit should they want to. Giving it all to one person can cause enormous resentment among the rest of the local community who still live in the same run down houses.",Negative "Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I ""solved"" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...

Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your ""friend with benefits"", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed ""drama"".

And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...",Negative "I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..",Negative "This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.

I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch ""There's Still Something About Mary."" I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.

It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.

The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see ""Chasing Amy"".

RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM ""MYSTERY MEN""!",Negative "Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's ""The Tempest"") ""Rich and Strange"" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's ""The Crowd"" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.

*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph",Negative "I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking ""Is this supposed to be funny"" and ""This is the guy from Tenacious D right?"". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....",Negative "I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.

Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel.",Positive "This movie had it all,action,comedy,heroics,and best of all some of the finest actors.Gunga Din will remain a classic to be enjoyed by all who like good movies.Excellent picture,i have it in my collection.",Positive "Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.

To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place.",Negative "I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it!",Positive "This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.",Negative "First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS!

Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)

She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.

Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends.

What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.

Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)

The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud!

My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!

Watch it, you won't be disappointed!",Positive """Panic"" is a captivating, blurred-genre film about a brooding and conflicted middle aged hitman's reconciliation of infatuation with a younger uninhibited hairstylist, his love of wife and son, his duty to his employer/father with his own identity. Although the film has a nebulous purpose and an ambiguous ending, it is a superb production in almost all aspects. The characters' clarity and sincerity in such an improbable story may both fascinate and annoy audiences.",Positive "Born Again the Limerick:

If a man could come back from the dead

And live in a little girl's head

Revenge he would get

For the murder he met

By the guy that's now in his wife's bed.

For me Born Again is a highly under-rated, classic episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely creeped out by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I couldn't sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the creepiness factor that I have since grown to enjoy. Its enough to let me look past some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really cool Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But even with its little flaws, in my mind this is a classic episode and has little to no reason for me to not like it. 10 out of 10.",Positive "I wonder what audiences of the day thought when first laying eyes on Walter Jack Palance (Blackie). Certainly he looks like no one else of the time, that skull-like face, flattened nose, and elongated body-- even now he remains an unsettling presence. And what could be more appropriate than his emergence out of those dingy New Orleans slums that appear to fester like the plague Blackie is loosing on the city. I'm just sorry he didn't have more scenes.

The movie itself is very skillfully assembled— the morgue's black humor, the Widmark- Douglas interplay, the un-touristy locations, the battles among officials—all are woven into a tensely realistic thriller with a menace unlike others of the time. Even Widmark's domestic scenes that put a woman (Bel Geddes) on the marquee manage not to be too disruptive. Director Kazan certainly shows his aptitude for helming a studio (Fox) product, no matter how he may have felt about the commercial aspect.

Widmark does a solid low-key job as the public health officer. But my money is on the one- and-only Zero Mostel. Was there ever a sweatier performer who could squeal louder or get pushed around more than the bulky fall guy (e.g. The Enforcer, 1950). That scene with Mostel, where Palance argues with Mostel's shrewish wife (Liswood), is a gem of frantic subservience as Mostel tries to pacify each like some berserk pinball. Too bad he lost so many years to the blacklist. (I wonder if it was the voluble Kazan who named him.)

But it's not only the professionals that add color. The locals add both character and authenticity, especially the two Asian guys interviewed by the cops. That whole scene has an improvised air, as if Kazan recognized their potential and fashioned a nifty little scene on the spot. Then too, that colorful hiring hall with all the deck hands is pure inspiration. And what about those flea-bitten coffee shops that have me running to the nearest Denny's.

Anyway, the movie is still a well-staged, riveting thriller with an apocalyptic air that oddly foreshadows many of today's mega-hits.",Positive "I was taken to this film by a friend and was sceptical about a Swedish film with subtitles. However, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this beautiful film. The unnecessary cruelty that man is capable of was portrayed confidently without overwhelming images - although animal lovers may have to shield their eyes for a brief couple of seconds somewhere during the first 10 minutes. A traditional story of humility versus brutality and hope versus tragedy was illustrated from a satisfyingly fresh angle using a spectrum of characters with very natural flaws and features. I particularly liked how the film managed to address multiple aspects of hypocritical human behaviour that concern bias, discrimination and sanctimonious pretence. An absolute gem of a film that I will promote to all who will listen.",Positive "I am not one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.

This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.

For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...

",Negative """The sweet is never as sweet without the sour."" This quote was essentially the theme for the movie in my opinion. Tom Cruise plays a young man who was handed everything in his life. He takes things for granted and it comes around full swing in this great movie with a superb twist. This film will keep you engaged in the plot and unable to pause it to take a bathroom break.

Its a movie that really makes you step back and look at your life and how you live it. You cannot really appreciate the better things in life (the sweet), like love, until you have experienced the bad (the sour). The theme will really get you to ""open your eyes"".

Only complaint is that the movie gets very twisted at points and is hard to really understand. I think the end is perfect though. I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.",Positive "This is an amazing movie and all of the actors and actresses and very good! Even though some of the actors and actresses weren't very popular in show business it seemed like they have been acting since they were 1 one year old! It was funny, gross and just all out a very good movie. In most parts I just didn't know what was going to happen next! I was like I think this is going to happen, wait I think this is going to happen. All age groups will love this movie! In some parts I couldn't stop laughing, it was so funny, but in some parts I was totally grossed out and I couldn't believe what I was seeing! I am definitely going to see this movie again! It is one of those movies where it can't get boring. Every time you see it is so suspenseful. I definitely recommend seeing this movie!!",Positive "For anyone craving a remake of 1989's Slaves of New York. What are there, seven of you? Here it is... was.

This undercooked movie has studiously vapid characters (Well they're club-kids, ya big jerk!) that are in holding patterns. The big question seems to be, just how long can a young adult remain juvenile? It took three people to write this 'story'? Good god, it was easier to come up with Citizen Kane. Rather than take viewers back, this movie should just embarrass anyone who was a scene-ster in the early 90s.

The idea that a fifty year old woman envies a bunch of self-absorbed kids from a different era is the world as only self-absorbed, twenty-somethings could imagine it. The odd sidebar about library work is not the sub-plot one expects from the equivalent of Parker Posey's Breakin 2: Electric Bugaloo. Her ""I'm serious about graduate school!"" while a stripper grinds on her is hysterical. Posey's shtick is always amusing, but there are projects that are beneath her. I was asleep before it crossed the 40 minute mark.",Negative """One of Hung's better early efforts. The humor is dead-on in parts as Hung tries to imitate Lee's moves and facial expressions, and also in a bit where Hung pokes fun at Jackie Chan's Drunken Master. The action is also pretty good, especially when Hung takes on a trio on martial arts experts at the end. It's not the greatest film, but pretty good for '70's kung fu, especially if you're a fan of Hung and/or Lee. Be warned, though: most video versions of the movie have pretty shoddy quality. There is also a character in blackface which some people might find offensive.

Sammo Hung is a rural swine-herder who moves to Hong Kong to fight off some bad guys. Sammo turns on his dead-on Bruce Lee impersonation when fighting!

This film is often billed as a parody of Bruce Lee's ""Enter The Dragon"", but it's not exactly that... Sammo is a rural swine herder--obsessed with Bruce Lee--who moves to Hong Kong to help his relatives run a small open-air restaurant. Once situated at the new job, he is forced to defend the eatery from local gangsters looking for protection money. When Sammo switches into fighting mode, he switches on his Bruce Lee impersonation, which must be seen to be believed! This film is pretty sloppy, in many of the fight scenes Sammo battles against people who are obviously actors rather than martial artists, and there's one character who's supposed to be black who is played by an Asian man in heavy (and preposterous) makeup. But what this film lacks in budget and accuracy, it more than makes up for in atmosphere and energy. Highly recommended for a good mood.""",Positive "Dwight Frye steals the show in this one as a foolish young man(who seems to be mentally handicapped) who gets himself blamed for vampire-like murders especially after he reveals his love for bats which he likes to stroke and give to unsuspecting friends as 'gifts'!. Besides all of that, there's an entertaining mystery tale involving the above mentioned murders. Underrated.",Positive "This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.

Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.

The special effects were so-so, though the ""undead"" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent ""Evil Dead"" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the ""Lost in Space"" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....)

The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.

I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.

** out of *****",Negative "Went to Wal-Mart and found this film on DVD and had no idea whether I made a bad purchase or a good one. It is the later outcome to my viewing the entire film from beginning to end. Michelle Rodriquez,(Diana Guzman),""BloodRayne"",'05, gave a great performance and her looks are beautiful, sexy, and at the same time a real study in the art of how acting is really performed. Diana did not like her home life and especially her own father for the abuse he gave her mother. She decides to get boxing training in a local Brooklyn Gym and is not really well accepted by the male boxers. In her high school there is plenty of friction between her female classmates and guys. There is lots of action in the ladies bathroom and references as to private parts of guys. If you like boxing, and seeing a hot sexy gal do wonders in the ring and knock the boys on their you Know What, this is the film for you.",Positive "Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to ""wish or hate away."" As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****",Positive "If 1977's ""Exorcist II: The Heretic"" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought ""Carrie"" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, ""Medusa"" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****",Negative "I watched this film in shire joy.

This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.

All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.

The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.

And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.

If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all.",Positive "I don't quite know how to explain ""Darkend Room,"" because to summarize it wouldn't really do it justice. It's a quintessentially Lynchian short film with two beautiful girls in a strange, mysterious situation. I would say this short is definitely more on the ""Mulholland Drive"" end of the Lynchian spectrum, as opposed to ""The Elephant Man"" or ""The Straight Story."" It's hidden on Lynch's website, and well worth the search.",Positive "I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!",Negative "I gave this film an 10/10 with some reluctance as it's hard to praise something that so haunted and terrified me for years. The sheer menace on the woman in black's face is just pure horror and the accompanying music just worsens the dread.

I saw this when it was first on TV when I was 10 and it really did disturb me for years. I'm fascinated by the fact that so many other users have said this too. So many movie reviews go on about how disturbing or terrifying a film might be but you can believe all those who have posted on this board, this really is incredibly powerful stuff. I mean I really like horror films and generally find them quite funny more often than not, but this really is menacing and will probably disturb most people. I haven't seen it since I was 10 and I'm tempted to watch it again but fear I might have some sleepless nights. I can't quite put my finger on what it is exactly, but I think it's something to do with the fact that fear is the Woman's greatest weapon and that we, as viewers, are just as susceptible as we feel the fear so intensely. It's remarkable that other viewers' feelings are so unanimous.

I've also seen the stage play, which was an excellent production...but nothing can compare to this.",Positive """World's Finest"" is an unique project. It's a trailer for a Superman/Batman crossover movie that doesn't exists and will also never exists, at least not in this form, with these characters, actors and plot line anyway.

So the movie is one big tease, even more than standards everyday real movie trailers. The trailer will hype you all up for nothing. In that regard, I really didn't liked this short project. When watching this trailer it makes you hungry and excited for more and at the same time sad- and perhaps you'll even feel cheated afterward, when it turns out that a full length movie of this trailer will never exist at all. Sort of makes you wonder why this project was made in the first place. Surely to show off Sandy Collora's skills but couldn't he had also done this with a real movie short, like his earlier movie ""Batman: Dead End"".

But when you have to judge this short purely for what it is, so from a movie technical point of view, it's a really great one. It's great looking and way more professional than you'll perhaps at first would expect, although the people who've already seen ""Batman: Dead End"" will already know better than to expect a short with cardboard sets, cheap homemade costumes and third-rate actors. The short is not constantly impressive looking and obviously the budget wasn't sky-high but for most part it's very impressive and professional looking, with nice costumes, sets, special effects, cinematography and lighting.

The short has a good quick and typical trailer build up, with perhaps a bit too many posing shots too completely find it credible but hey, it works well for the trailer style. It has some impressive shots but also a couple of lame ones, mainly the Superman flying sequences. It was obvious that the guy was just standing at a moving car, with a camera aimed at him from an angle below. I even found it a pretty laughable thing to watch. But really the better and more spectacular moments really compensate for this.

Michael O'Hearn seemed like a pretty good Superman/Clark Kent, although he obviously isn't the greatest talented actor around. Clark Bartram reprises his Batman role well again and Kurt Carley seemed like an awesome Lex Luthor. The rest of the cast also served its purpose well enough.

It's especially interesting to watch this short after the recent new modern reinterpretations of the two main superheroes of this movie, in the movies ""Batman Begins"" and ""Superman Returns"". It's interesting to compare the style and character treatment of those movies with this one. It's actually amazing and fun to hear how much Kurt Carley does sound like Kevin Spacey, the actor who played Lex Luthor in ""Superman Returns"".

It's a good looking and well made and constructed trailer that however will makes you hungry for more, even though you know that there won't be more. Whatever happened to the Waner Bros. plans to create an actual full length Superman/Batman movie by the way? I thought that developments were underway for it a couple of years ago but nothing has been heard of it ever since. Instead two new separate Batman and Superman movies were made; ""Batman Begins"" and ""Superman Returns"".

7/10",Positive "This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's ""Baron Munchausen"") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.

As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as ""Ted Healy and his Stooges"" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!

This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.

In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).

Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the ""Clean as a Whistle"" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called ""Pre-Code"" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word ""Clean"" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!",Negative "A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.

The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10",Negative "I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead ""Friday Foster"" and ""Bucktown"", I shouldn't have wondered.",Negative "Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.",Negative "I'm sure that most people already know the story-the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge gets a visit from three spirits (the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come) who highlight parts of his life in the hopes of saving his soul and changing his ways. Dickens' classic story in one form or another has stood the test of time to become a beloved holiday favorite.

While I grew up watching the 1951 version starring Alastair Sims, and I believe that he is the definitive Scrooge, I have been impressed with this version, which was released when I was in high school. George C. Scott plays a convincing and mean Ebenezer Scrooge, and the actors playing the ghosts are rather frightening and menacing. David Warner is a good Bob Cratchit as well.

This version is beautifully filmed, and uses more modern filming styles (for the 1980's) which make it more palatable for my children than the 1951 black and white version.

This is a worthy adaptation of the story and is one that I watch almost every year at some point in the Christmas season.",Positive "I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.

Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator.",Positive "Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the ""untold story"", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.

Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.

So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.

Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.

All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.",Negative "Clean family oriented movie. I laughed, I cried...I loved it. I was worried I wouldn't be able to see Steve Carrell as anything but goofy Michael from The Office. Boy, was I wrong. He should win an Oscar for his performance. I will definitely buy this on DVD when it comes out. My husband enjoyed it and he isn't into movies of this ""type"". I saw it with 2 other couples in the 30 year old range and we all agreed it was the best movie we had seen in a LONG time and certainly the cleanest. Only 1 cuss word! Not even sure why it was PG13. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedy, drama, romance and more!",Positive "I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.

I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.

On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.

Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point?",Negative "You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.

Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.

But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.

The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.

It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.

It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.",Positive "As Jack Nicholson's directorial debut, Drive, He Said displays at the least that he is a gifted director of actors. Even when the story might seem to lose its way to the audience (and to a modern audience - if they can find it, which pops up now and again on eBay - it might seem more free formed than they think), the film contains vivid, interesting characterizations. The film tells of two college kids: the protagonist is Hector (William Tepper, in what borders on a break-out performance), a star of the Leopards, the college basketball team he plays on. While he has to deal with a coach (Bruce Dern) who puts on the pressure to stay focused, and a on and off girlfriend (Karen Black) with her own emotional problems, there's Gabriel (Michael Margotta), the other kid. Gabriel, it seems, is just a little more than freaked out by the possibility to be drafted, and so in his own radical mind-state he does what he can to keep out. But as Hector tries to find the balance between his oncoming fame and those he loves, Gabriel is going over the threshold of sanity.

Nicholson, on the technical side of things, displays a fascinating editing style that keeps things on edge during the basketball scenes, and implements darkness in many other scenes with a documentary-feel throughout. And from Tepper, Black, and even Robert Towne (writer of Chinatown, Last Detail, and Mission: Impossible among others, who rarely acts) he garners some credible acting work. Though in Tepper there is a tendency to downplay his emotions. In some scenes, for example, when he could act brilliantly sarcastic, he doesn't play it for what it's worth. From Margotta, on the other hand, there is a vibrant, twisted force in his performance, and as he descends it's frightening, but perhaps understandable from the times (and what a climax). Dern steals most of his scenes, by the way, in a performance that should have garnered him an Oscar nomination. Every line of his dialog is appropriate, true, and it's never hammed up like in recent coach movie performances.

But what drags down the film is that elements involving the characters aren't explained to the degree one might wish more. The film was based on a novel by Jeremy Larner, who co-wrote the script with Nicholson, and I was expecting that the film to be longer than it was. It's a slim volume with a lot of information, about the times, about the sport, about the underlying feelings that were with those of the younger generation. Nicholson presents us with these characters and situations, and rarely are they shown to what's motivating them (the anti-war protesters not included, their part's understandable enough). Gabriel is perturbed by what's going on in Vietnam, but what else is there? Hector, too, is a guy who has apprehensions about being drafted for the NBA, and he still loves to play, but what's holding him back? This whole atmosphere is intriguing, how the late 60's college/basketball experience was, but that intriguing quality, which does lead to some unconventionality, is kept at a point where it can't go too further. Overall, the effect of the film as a whole is bittersweet, and somewhat memorable for its good points, and not for it's low ones. And, for sure, you can tell who's behind the lens every step of the way. B+",Positive "Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.

The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.

What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.

Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding.

""These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour"". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.

There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.

An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.

The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.

There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s.

I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.

As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?

Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift.",Negative "Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.

it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton",Negative "Barbra Streisand is a tour de force in this Hollywood story. Her performances and the songs are one-of-a-kind and are special in the halls of great movies. The scene where she is introduced to the unexpecting audience by Kristopherson, against the crowds' wishes and hers, only to turn them around with her magnificent performance of ""Woman In the Moon"" is one of the best examples on film of how well a great performer can win over an audience. It's real. The scene where she records Evergreen ranks with the best in the business.. all live, no lip-sync, very special. Streisand is often criticized for being a Diva, but she delivers on this one. She is majestic singing ""With One More Look At You. She deserved the Oscar she and Paul Williams got for Evergreen. Kristopherson had his moments too, far above most of his movie appearances. This version of the ""Born"" franchise ranks with the first one of 1937 (Janet Gaynor, Frederic March)although I will always enjoy Judy Garland and James Mason musical remake of 1954. I haven't seen the DVD yet and don't know about its quality.",Positive "The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!

Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.

So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, ""They Live"" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.

I give it 4 out of 10.",Negative "I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say ""unexpectedly"" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.

""Victorian era"" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.

I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it.",Positive "The third collaboration for Karloff and Lugosi sees a move away from Poe and into the realm of the science fiction serial. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, creator of a device that can capture light rays through his telescope in the Carpathian Mountains and translate them into pictures that form a visual history of the universe.

Before several guests, including Lugosi as Dr. Benet, an astro-chemist who had previously scoffed at Rukh's theories, he demonstrates the existence of an unknown radioactive element, here termed ""Radium X"", contained in a meteor that fell to Earth in darkest Africa several thousand years ago. Karloff joins the expedition to prove his theories, but Radium X is a tricky compound - it levels mountains at long range, and cures blindness at short range. Rukh is careless, however, and poisons himself, glowing in the dark rather like those old Ready Breck commercials! Dr. Benet is on hand to devise a counter-active for the radiation, but combination of poison and cure drives Rukh insanely paranoid. Convinced he has been cheated, he seeks out the members of the expedition in Paris, including his estranged wife, and his very touch while in his radioactive state means death...

Along the way we get the old pseudo-scientific idea that a dead person's eyes record the image of their killer (a remarkably distinct Karloff!) and the Radium X device used to symbolically melt statues that represent the expedition members. And even a touch of James Whale in a cockney landlady in Paris!

The Invisible Ray is great fun, aside from the Gothic opening it's interesting to see Universal move the action around to Africa and Paris. The film lacks pace, but is always absorbing. Karloff slightly overdoes his performance but Lugosi is terrific. Universal used the basic story outline again in Man Made Monster, this time with Lon Chaney Jr. as the glowing menace (this time caused by electricity) and Lionel Atwill as a much madder doctor than Lugosi is here. The Invisible Ray is a sombre and clever little film with much to admire. Not as famous as other Universal Horrors, perhaps, but it works and is highly entertaining.",Positive "lets start off by saying that ""JAWANI DIWANI"" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said ""I missed the joyride"". lol.

The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.

MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA.

Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.

the movie is horrible. The songs ""SINI NE SINI NE"" is fantastic the remix version is even better. ""DIL DIWANA"" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.",Negative "Who ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds.",Negative "Of course, ""Flatley"" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: ""Feet of Flames""

One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.

I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.

""Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd."" ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide",Negative "Following the brilliant ""Goyôkiba"" (aka. ""Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice"", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel ""Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme"" (aka. ""Razor 2: The Snare"", 1973), this ""Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban"" aka. ""Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold"" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, ""Sword Of Justice"" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third ""Hanzo"" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. ""Who's Got The Gold"" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in ""Who's Got The Gold"", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels!",Positive "First of all, in defense of JOAN FONTAINE, it must be said that Ginger Rogers would have been terribly miscast as Alyce, the young British lady who has the title role. Fontaine makes a fetching picture as the heroine here, but her acting inexperience shows badly and her dancing is better left unmentioned. Fortunately, she went on to better things.

But here it's FRED ASTAIRE, GEORGE BURNS and GRACIE ALLEN who get the top billing--and they are excellent. Fans of Burns & Allen will be surprised at how easily they fit into Astaire's dance routines. Especially interesting is the big fun house routine that won choreographer Hermes Pans an Oscar. They join Astaire in what has to be the film's most inventive highlight.

Unfortunately, not much can be said for the slow pacing of the story--nor some of the stale situations which call for a lot of patience from the viewer. It must be said that some of the humor falls flat and the usual romantic misunderstandings that occur in any Fred Astaire film of this period are given conventional treatment. Only the musical interludes give the story the lift it needs.

Some pleasant Gershwin tunes pop up once in awhile but not all of them get the treatment they deserve. The nice supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner, at his best in a polished comic performance as a conniving servant, Constance Collier and Montagu Love (as Joan's father mistaken as a gardener by Astaire).

It's a lighthearted romp whenever Burns & Allen are around to remind us how funny they were in their radio and television days. Both of them are surprisingly adept in keeping up with Astaire's footwork.

Director George Stevens makes sure that Joan Fontaine's hillside dance number with Fred is filmed at a discreet distance but clever camera-work cannot disguise the fact that she is out of her element as Astaire's dance partner, something she seems painfully aware of.",Positive "Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.

The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem ""normal"", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction.",Negative "A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.

Released in 1993, ""Darkness"" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like ""The Dead Next Door"" and ""The Children of Ravensback"", is actually rather infectious.

While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.

In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.",Negative "STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.

It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.

It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.

This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found it. **",Negative "This was the second of the series of 6 ""classic Tarzan"" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an ""in between"" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane ""returning"" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.",Positive "This is one of the best comedy ever ! The writing of this parody of soap is brilliant and the cast, well just look at the names of the cast and you'll understand why it is so great. If you're a Kevin Kline fan, he does (as always) an fantastic performance, and Robert Downey Jr is perfect. If you don't laugh while seen this movie, you don't have any sense of humor.",Positive "I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.",Negative "Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.

It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there… Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.

If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc… the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).

I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.

Save yourselves and watch something else.",Negative "That's what the title should be, anyway.

This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an ""action"" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.

What happens in the movie? People die.

Is that it? Yes.

What is the plot about? What plot?

What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.

What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.

Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.

If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard ""entertainment"", then ""Made Men"" is not for you.

To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.

This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't ""Made"".",Negative "I think this movie is absolutely beautiful. And I'm not referring only to the breathtaking scenery. It's about two unhappy English housewives who decide to rent an Italian castle to take a break from their not so happy home lives. In the end four women total rent the place together, all with different personalities and different reasons for being there. In this magically beautiful place they all find the peace they're longing for and interestingly that peace comes from inward reflections and resolutions, more so than without. I also find it wonderful because of the relationships that are developed out kindness and understanding. The acting is a joy to watch in itself. I especially love the characters of Lottie (Josie Lawrence) and Lady Caroline (Polly Walker).",Positive "Whale-hunters pick on the wrong freaking whale.

A group of yahoo whale exploitists capture a female and string her up by her tail-fin. The whale's mate sees the whole thing including the moment the female's unborn baby slips out and slops onto the deck. 'Captain Nolan' (Richard Harris) could tell that the big male is really mad by the way it stared him down as if to say, ""Get out of town before high-tide.""

This story of revenge has Harris' presence and Bo's beauty, but not much else. This was Bo's first 'released' film, though her first acting job was four years previous in 'And Once Upon a Love' released in 1981 as 'Fantasies' (directed by John Derek).

P.S. Today, the date of this review (November 20), is Bo Derek's birthday. I hope Bo has a 'whale' of a good time..... get it?..... whale?..... hee-hee.",Negative "Dreadful horror sequel to ""The Howling"". This picks off with Karen White's funeral (she was killed at the end of the first film). Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee sadly) arrives there and tells Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) that Karen was a werewolf. He's going to Transylvania to kill Striba (Sybil Danning) the head werewolf. Ben and a coworker of Karens (Annie McEnroe) join him.

A terrible script, bad direction, inept editing and truly horrendous acting by Brown and McEnroe single handedly sink this one. The werewolf effects are mostly kept in the dark--for good reason! They're terrible when you see them. Subpar special effects also--although I DID like the cartoon lightning that comes from Danning's fingers. There's also a werewolf orgy which is particularly stupid and Danning takes off her top at least EIGHT TIMES during the closing credits!

There are a few good things--I found the village in Transylvania amusing--it looks like it came from a Universal horror flick from the 1930s! There are interesting camera tricks between transition scenes; Brown and McEnroe have good bodies and Lee and Danning are good in this--but they can't save it. Really--WHY did they do this? Where that they hard up for money??? This is one of IMDb's lowest rated movies. That alone should tell you something. Supposedly Danning was horrified when she saw the movie--I can understand why! A must-miss.",Negative "This is obviously aimed at the same market as Monsters Inc and Shrek, but is different in its less cartoony feel (despite the deliberately cartoony characteristics of the lead creatures). The story is not one that had a massive in your face moral at the end (its more like its tugging at your shirt sleeves) but chooses just to tell a story about relationships between different ""animals."" You know the outcome, but you can't help being drawn in.

The characters themselves are far more than their voices (the advantage of less famous actors doing the voices), unlike most Disney movies. They are well rounded and completely believable, strangely. The group dynamics are brilliantly well presented and the character revelations and quirks are subtle and enjoyable. You will find yourself rooting for them far sooner than you would like to think.

The animation is brilliant, as you would expect, and you will be praying for the opportunity to go on the ice slide in the movie. You will fall in love with the characters, especially the comic relief of the prehistoric squirrel and its desperate attempts to bury its nuts. I came out wanting the obligatory merchandise, especially the sloth toy, only to be disappointed the next day when I couldn't find anything vaguely related.

Which, strangely, makes the movie all the more pure.

Better than Monsters Inc or Shrek.",Positive "A BDSM ""sub-culture"" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls ""Mistress Vanessa"", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a ""sex slave"" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a ""dungeon party"". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.",Negative "I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.

From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.

The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.

The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.

The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.

The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.

The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.

The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.

The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.

There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.

10/10",Positive "Renaissance (2006)' was created over a period of six years, co-funded by France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom at a cost of around €14 million. The final result is a staggering accomplishment of comic-book style animation, aesthetically similar to what Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller achieved with 'Sin City (2005),' but this film employed motion capture with live-actors to translate their faces and movements into an entirely animated format. Presented in stark black-and-white, the film looks as though it has been hoisted from the very pages of the graphic novel on which it was based, and the futuristic city of Paris looms ominously above us. Directed by French filmmaker Christian Volckman, in his feature-length debut, 'Renaissance' draws significantly from other films in the science-fiction genre, and the tech-noir storyline isn't something we haven't seen before, but, from a technical standpoint, it is faultless.

The year is 2054. The city of Paris is a crumbling metropolis filled with dark alleys and deserted footpaths, the recent installation of modern technology merely offering a thin mask to the pitiable degradation of the darkened buildings. The city's largest corporation, Avalon, achieved wealth through offering citizens the promise of beauty and youth, and the company's research department is continually striving to invent greater means of eliminating the aging process. Ilona Tasuiev (voiced by Romola Garai in the English-language version, which I watched) , a brilliant young scientist, is mysteriously kidnapped on her return from work, and so it falls to legendary detective Barthélémy Karas (Daniel Craig) to uncover her current whereabouts. Possibly holding the key to the woman's disappearance is Bislane (Catherine McCormack), Ilona's hardened elder sister, whose trustworthiness is in question, and Jonas Muller (Ian Holm), the dedicated medical doctor who adored Ilona as his own daughter.

The eerie, dimly-lit city of Paris is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner (1982),' and some of the technology looks as though it might have been borrowed from Tom Cruise in 'Minority Report (2002)' {which was, coincidentally, also set in the year 2054}. However, despite this familiarity, Volckman has created an exciting world for his characters to inhabit. Blending classic film-noir and science-fiction, the result is an eye-catching collage of harsh lighting and dark shadows, which, I should warn, occasionally becomes difficult on the viewer's eyes. The dialogue is a little banal at times, and the story, though engaging, doesn't offer anything strikingly original {except for the ending, which I thought was a bold twist on the usual formula}, but 'Renaissance' is intended to work best as a visual treat, and that it succeeds in this regard cannot be denied.",Positive "Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm…laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by ""real men"" for ""real men"" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.",Negative "Yes, this is an ultra-low budget movie. So the acting isn't award winning material and at times the action is slow-paced because the filmmakers are shooting longer sequences and not a million instants that then get edited into a movie. This film makes up for that with an outstanding script that takes vampirism seriously, explains it and develops a full plot out of it. Aside from the vampire story, we get detailed genetics info, legal and law enforcement, martial arts action, philosophical musings, and some good metal music. Kudos go to Dylan O'Leary, the director/writer/main actor. It is beyond me how this man could have fulfilled all these roles and do them so well. I think to appreciate this movie, you have to be well-versed in all sorts of themes to see that the writer did a lot of research and knows about all these things. There are some great camera work, too, interesting camera angles and one underwater vampire attack- something I haven't seen before, but which pays homage to the underwater zombie attack in Fulci's Zombi. The casting is good, in so far as the sexy female is sexy indeed. The main vampire also looks perfect for the role. The female victim looks vulnerable. My only complaint is that for a low budget horror flick, there should have been more nudity. If you want to see an original vampire movie with a great story, this flick is for you. I'm looking forward to seeing future projects by Mr. O'Leary.",Positive "This stylistically sophisticated visual game presents ‘a story within a story'. The protagonist is scriptwriter Bart Klever who fights persistently with his new text – which is, at the same time, the screenplay of the film we're watching. In the movie Bart plays a scriptwriter writing the script of the film… Bart's struggle with the text becomes a narrative theme, as does the environment of the flat where he works and takes care of his little girl. The intimate environment offers ample opportunity for games of illusion involving space, light, colours and a couple of cats. The outwardly simple world of the room is further complicated by the unstable dimensions of a text continually influenced by the filmmaker's interventions, which appears on a computer monitor and serves as a counterpoint to the similarity mutable environment. The constantly changing viewing angle complicates answers to questions which arise: What is ‘truth' and what ‘illusion' ? Which of the observed worlds is primary and superior to the rest? Can anything serve as a basic orientation point in the narrative space?",Positive "Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!",Positive "Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.",Negative "I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.",Positive "I am only 11 years old but I discovered Full House when I was about five and watched it constantly until I was seven. Then I grew older and figured Full House could wait and that I had ""more important"" things to do. Plus there was also the fact that my younger brother who watched it faithfully with me for those two years started to dislike it thinking it too ""girly.""

Then I realized every afternoon at five it was on 23 and I once again became addicted to it. Full House has made me laugh and cry. It's made me realize how nice it would be if our world was like the world of Full House plus a mom. I have heard people say Full House is cheesy and unbelievable. But look at the big picture: three girls whose mom was killed by a drunk driver. The sisters fight and get their feelings hurt. The three men who live with the girls can get into bickers at times. What's any more real than that?

If anything the show has lifted me up when I'm down and brought me up even higher when I thought I was at the point of complete happiness. I have howled like a hyena at the show and gained a massive obsessiveness over Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. (Of course Hilary Duff has now taken that spot but they were literally the cutest babies I have ever seen. They are great actresses and seem to be very nice people.)",Positive "Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason… his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn… Bunny Comes Home… gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true… then, the future we spin into again is fantastical… now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane… how expensive, blissfully optimistic… still, ""You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true…""",Positive "i am rarely moved to make these kind of comments BUT after sitting through most of rankin's dreadful movie i feel like i have really earned the right to say what i feel about it! i couldn't actually make it right to the end, and became one of the half dozen or more walk outs (about 1/3rd of the audience) after the ragged plot, woeful dialogue and insulting characterisation became just too much to bear. this film is all pose and no art. all style and no substance. it is weighed down by dreadful acting, a genuinely dire script, indifferent cinematography and student-level production values. how it got funded, started, and finished is a mystery to me. i bet you a million quid it never goes on general release. the proper critics would tear it apart. a really bad film. shockingly bad. a really really really poor effort AND that is without even mentioning the gratuitous new-born-kitten-gets-dropped-into-a-deep-fat-fryer moment. totally meaningless, utterly lightweight, poorly put together; this movie is a dreadful embarrassment for uk cinema.",Negative "This is the epitome of fairytale! The villains are completely wicked and the heroes are refreshingly pure. Danes, Deniro,and Pfieffer are wonderful as well as the new actor who plays the role of Tristan. Outstanding performances, delightful magic, funny and dramatic, and a perfect fairytale ending make this film absolutely fabulous! I'm not so sure all content is appropriate for younger children but for an older audience, there are plenty of hilarious subtleties! The previews do not do this movie justice! My fiancé and I were quite skeptical but were so thrilled we had taken a chance on this movie that I can only hope to assure anyone on the fence about this movie to give it a try!",Positive "Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.",Positive "If you were a director that was looking to cast female victims for a slasher movie, then surely it would make sense to add a couple of porn stars? It's not as if they're inexperienced in front of the camera, they have no qualms with the requisite nudity and how many unattractive porn queens can you name? Christian Viel obviously recognized the potential of mixing hardcore actresses with hard-gore effects and so he cast four of adult cinema's sexiest and most notorious stars. Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn Allen and Taylor Hayes all turn up for cameos in arguably the most intriguing slasher flick to be released since Scream Reinvigorated the genre.

Samhain was originally intended for a cinema release in October 2002 - thus keeping in check with the Halloween-based synopsis. Unfortunately, the shoot was plagued by numerous problems, which have thus prevented the feature from achieving the exposure that it deserves. Last I heard it had been signed by Film 2000 here in the UK and was penned for a late October release direct to DVD. Unfortunately that label has got a peerlessly abysmal track record with DTV slashers. Not content with polluting our shelves with Camp Blood and its follow up, they were also responsible for unleashing Granny, Bleed and the rancid Paranoid. Could Samhain finally be worthwhile ammunition to their contemptible catalogue cannon?

Five Canadian/American students and their teacher head to Southern Ireland as part of their history course. Upon arrival they are told the legend of a cannibalistic clan that roamed the hills of Scotland and murdered locals for food. The cannibals were eventually caught and burnt at the stake, but it's rumored that one of the tribe escaped and headed to the woodland of Ireland to find refuge. After the kids have settled and begun doing what all massacre-fodder does in these flicks, the mandatory goody two-shoes (and definite heroine candidate) begins to be spooked by a shadow creeping around late at night. Could it be that the flesh hungry maniac is still at large in the Forest? Well what do you think…?

It looks as if Samhain's production was jinxed right from the start. Almost immediately Wallmart refused to develop Jenna Jameson's nude make-up shots, and Chasey Lain began acting characteristically like a drugged-out primadonna. Finally to add insult to injury, the producers got cold feet just before the flick was about to hit shelves and began talking of re-editing and removing all the gore. Reports have said that they were unhappy about the copious amounts of violence and they wanted to trim scenes down so it would achieve an R rating. Veil of course disagreed, seeing how his entire synopsis was boosted by its creatively graphic display. Eventually after months of arguments, the director parted company with Warehouse productions and the feature was once again locked in the vaults.

Despite countless disruptions, Veil's slasher opus is still one of the best genre pieces to be released since the new millennium. The copy I was sent was the pre-release screener, which was obviously a test press without sound effects or the complete soundtrack. But still it boasted a few credible jump-scares, some superb cinematography and a couple of the goriest set pieces that I've seen for some time. One guy is disemboweled via his rectum before being strangled with his own intestine, Jenna Jameson is stripped naked and gutted in unflinching close up and Chasey Lain ends up 'spilling her guts' after an unfortunate rescue attempt from her boyfriend (Richard Grieco). Even though the murders are uncommonly gruesome, Samhain never feels mean spirited, which is basically due to the characters being thinly portrayed as basic slasher clichés. In all honesty the script was perhaps the movies biggest downfall, because the dialogue was not so much inspired by Wes Craven's Scream movies as it was flagrantly cut and pasted from them.

Certainly the inclusion of the mouth-watering Jenna Jameson was a great move by the producers. Her fans will be excited to know that she does whip off her top (as expected) and so does Chasey Lain and Taylor Hayes. But Samhain is no soft porn movie, and it benefits from sticking to the structure that it set out to produce. It's worth noting that the aforementioned XXX stars almost out-perform the supposed 'actors' of the feature, which isn't much of a complement. Ginger Lynn was at least notable (if you ignore the shameful 'Oirish accent), and her battle with the hulking killer was superbly performed and choreographed by Alan Chou. Taylor and Jenna delivered expectedly poor dramatics, which could have been caused by the numerous problems on-set. Veil's direction of the cinematography was excellently constructed and he provides some much-needed injections of suspense. Exciting and crisp photography is mixed with a good flair for storytelling and the net result is a slasher extravaganza to satisfy even the most critical gore hounds.

It will be interesting to see what kind of final cut is released of Samhain. Rumor has it that a second director was drafted in to shoot a different ending, and I'm curious as to how much of the explicit gore will remain intact for worldwide distribution. If the end result is only half as good as the rough print that I watched, then it's still better than nearly all of the genre pieces that have been unleashed over the past ten years. This one is certainly worth checking out…",Positive "The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.

First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.

Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.

The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.

Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off.",Negative "The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.

The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.

The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.",Positive "I guess this movie is a fitting tribute to the first Superman film,as it is just as crummy and painfully long as the original.

After an opening scene consisting solely of murky intergalactic visuals, the credits pay homage to the even-crummy-looking-for-their-time futuristic sweeping credits of the original Superman film.

Then there is some more murky stuff. Ma Kent sees some kind of murky ruckus on the farm, and spends a good portion of my life slowly walking up to some debris in the cornfield. Then Superman sneaks up on her and faints.

Next we catch up with Lex Luthor in a scene about many murky close-ups of an old lady as she dies. We don't see Luthor's face until the end of the scene, an early instance of the film's drive to leave no hackneyed stone unturned. Lex Luthor is a guy who doesn't like Superman because he is not human. Also, he probably doesn't like humans either, as the movie occasionally features some kind of plot about Lex Luthor planning to kill most of Earth's population.

After a while, Clark Kent shows up back at his old job (I forgot to mention, he had been away on a five year trip where nothing happened). Then he finds out Lois Lane has an illegitimate kid and is dating Cyclops. It upsets him so much that he loses control of his super strength to such an extent that he accidentally breaks a picture frame.

At this point we see that Miss Lane is on some kind of jet attached to some kind of space shuttle. It is some kind of important event on account of it is on television. Then we learn that there are people in a control room monitoring this event. There are also people watching it on television and there are pilots in the cockpit. The film then reminds us that these people are involved by cutting between them for most of the summer.

As the events leading up to the inevitable disaster started to build, I excused myself to get a soda. I accidentally walked back into the wrong theater and watched that movie about Al Gore showing slides in its entirety. I tried to find my way back to Superman Returns, but I somehow wandered into Prairie Home Companion, which I watched twice in a row. Then it was time to stop messing around.

I walked back into the first theater, found my seat, and looked up to see that the impending Lois Lane space shuttle disaster was almost upon us. Still, it seemed to be taking forever, so I wandered around the theater, met a girl, got married, raised a son and sent him off to college. While attending my son's medical school graduation, I remembered that I should probably check in on Superman Returns, so I excused myself and raced back to the theater only to learn there was no need to hurry. It still took about another half hour before things went wrong for Space Shuttle Lane. When they did, Superman saved everybody, which was pretty cool.

. And then there is a a subplot where Superman turns really creepy and starts stalking Lois Lane and her family with his x-ray vision and super-hearing. Then he tries to get her to cheat on Cyclops, who seems like a good guy.

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is involved in some kind of contest to display every possible generic villain behavior before the end of the movie. I forgot to bring my scorecard home with me (they give you one at the door), but I think he scored damn close to one hundred percent. I hope he wins the million dollars.

At this point, things start to gear up for the big murky finale. I think maybe the projector was broken, on account of the movie seemed to be in some kind of loop for a while here. I remember seeing murky things growing out of the water, Superman getting sick, Superman getting better, back to the murky things, he's sick again, no wait, he's okay again.

Then Lex Luthor unleashed his final bad guy move: yelling at his girlfriend a little bit.

Then Superman died and came back to life. I thought the movie was over, so I left.

Ninety years later, the nursing home where I lived felt a little chilly. I realized I left my sweatshirt back in the theater, and I went to retrieve it. When I did, I was slightly surprised to find that Superman Returns wasn't over yet. I tried to ask some of the viewers what I missed, but most of them were only skeletons with long gray beards by now.

I sat back in my old seat and watched as Lois Lane puttered around her house for a while. Then Superman showed up and started quoting the beginning of the movie, and since I already saw that part I thought it was okay to leave.

So that is my review of Superman Returns.

Oh, also, if you like jokes about people eating dogs or jokes about one dog eating another dog, you will love this movie. On account of there are two jokes like that in it.",Negative "Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.

But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, ""they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice."" Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to ""beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters."" Duh! Of course they are.

In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)

Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.

Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.

The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!

If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an ""unelected tyrant"" and does not ""rule by decree"" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.

This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed!",Positive myself and 2 sisters watched all 3 series of Tenko and agree this is by far one of the BBC better series.The whole cast were very convincing in the parts they portrayed and although the 3rd series was somewhat slower it was compelling viewing and my evenings wont be the same without it.No doubt we will be watching it again as it is a series which I would never get sick of watching.Excellent viewing and full marks to the BBC for such a brilliant series and the casting.First rate in all departments and would recommend this series to anyone although some age limits must be considered because of some adult material.So grateful to the BBC for releasing this series on DVD and Video.,Positive "Anton Newcombe makes the film and he is the main subject. Watching him knock up a song if not a whole album quickly showed the guy to be a real talent. He thinks he is god but is so prollific and interesting. The DW are not really that interesting in comparison musicly or otherwise. ""Hey, do you haver a drivers license?"" ,Anton says to the cameraman, ""Well lets go pawn this guitar!"". Great use of archive/ home video material. Great to see rock docs still being made. A cool doc about the creative process. If you like this go see Nirvana Live! Tonight! Sold Out! on DVD. A good experience Anton is this film. 8 out of 10",Positive """House of Games"" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.

The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see.",Positive "A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than ""Boggy Creek 2"" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains ""Harry and the Henriksons""

My Grade: D",Negative "Of all the movies of the seventies, none captured to truest essence of the good versus evil battle as did the Sentinel. I mean, yes, there were movies like the Exorcist, and other ones; but none of them captured the human element of the protagonist like this one. If you have time, check this one out. You may not be able to get past the dated devices as such, but this is a story worth getting into.Then there are all the stars and soon-to-be stars. My absolute favorites were Eli Wallach, Sylvia Miles, and Burgess Meredith. Then there are the subtle clues that lead to what's going on too. Pay close attention. I had to watch it four times to catch on to all the smaller weird statements like 'black and white cat, black and white cake'. Plus, the books are really good as well. I'm just sorry that they're not going to turn the second book into a film. It's so scary that it would outdo this movie.",Positive "I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was ""by the director of Cube"" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.",Positive "OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!

This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.

Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.

Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.

I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much!",Negative "I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.

But now on to the movie...

I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a ""MOVIE"" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.

That's my two cents.",Positive """Panic in the Streets"" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as ""A Streetcar Named Desire"", ""On the Waterfront"" and ""East of Eden"". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still ""Panic in the Streets"" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.

The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.

The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.

Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.

Yet, ""Panic in the Streets"" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.

8/10",Positive "Well I don't personally like rap, but I still found Fear of a Black Hat hilarious. I'm sure I didn't get some inside jokes, but some I knew, and it was funny enough to make me laugh just after I'd stopped laughing. I'm a big fan of Spinal tap, so naturally I had to check this out. It was deriviative from This Is Spinal Tap, sometimes blatantly, but this film still stood on it's own as an original, intelligent, and funny satire. My personal favorite: ""Back in the time of slaves, they didn't have hats to protect them from the sun, so at the end of the day they were too tired to revolt. Now we have hats.""",Positive "first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.

How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope.",Positive "The primary aspect of this film which most people miss is that Luhzin lives his life as a chess game. So many people have seen this film and just don't get it, and I don't understand why. While watching this film I was taken on a private journey which floored me. I will try to explain this without any spoilers, but be forewarned, I do talk about things that happen in the movie.

**** Possible Spoilers **** Be Forewarned!****

His is a life of ""large moves"" versus ""small moves"". He chooses Natalia to be his Queen, and he and she behave as his Aunt first described the King and Queen and their moves when she introduced him to chess as a boy. Listen closely to that description.

When someone asks him a question, he flashbacks to the past as if reviewing past moves. (The flashbacks are beautifully lit, by the way.) The flashbacks are quite interesting as well, for they give not only his point of view as a child, but the point of view of the other character as well. It's stunning.

Various characters become either his helpers or his enemies, pawns, bishops and knights, their actions enlightening you as to who's side they are on. Even their placement in a scene is pivotal to understanding what is going on. Beautifully done.

I will not comment more on what happens to the character of Luhzin, but I hope that this will illuminate what is actually happening at the end.

This film is constantly working on many levels, which is why I endorse it. It was a treat and a joy to watch.

If you like this film I would recommend a film called Fresh. The only way that these films are similar is the use of chess and the characters being treated as pieces.

",Positive "Featured in 1955's THE COBWEB is an all star cast ranging from silent screen veteran LILLIAN GISH to Actors Studio progeny SUSAN STRASBERG. Set at an exclusive psychiatric hospital, what is this movie about you wonder......high drama ? Doctor & patient relationships ? Shock therapy treatment ? No, this howler is about who exactly will get to pick the draperies for a psychiatric hospital ! You think I'm kidding ? You won't believe your eyes as you're watching this unbelievable storyline that was turned into a movie ! Progressive head shrink Dr. McIver (RICHARD WIDMARK) wants to have all of the hospital's patients involved in the design, selection and execution of the needed new draperies. McIver's wife played by marble mouthed GLORIA GRAHAM wants to get her 2 cents in on this monumental task too. So does long time staffer Miss Inch (LILLIAN GISH). Directed by VINCENT MINELLI, you kinda wonder if he really became this overly involved in minute detail because of his marriage to worry wart JUDY GARLAND. Talented actors like LAUREN BACALL, SUSAN STRASBERG, CHARLES BOYER, and JOHN KERR are wasted in this hokey story. What were they thinking ?",Negative """The Leap Years"" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.

Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.

Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more ""in"" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical ""anglified"" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of ""semi-perfect English"" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.

The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the ""wit"" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés.

I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable.

There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, ""Go, before I change my mind,"" has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...

So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.

If you come across ""The Leap Years"" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss.",Negative "Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator"" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, ""Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.

My Grade: D+

Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller",Negative "Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing ""caution to the wind"" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant ""reminders"" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.

This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some ""emotion"" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.

Perennial ""old man"" Ian Wolfe assays the role of ""Mr. Atoz,"" the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past.",Positive "I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made.

It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was ""what's going on?"", 5 seconds later they tell you.

This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish.

Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end.",Negative "Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)",Positive "When an orphanage manager goes on vacation, his father takes over the details of the center and winds up renting the kids. When a well off, got it made couple with a nice apartment and great life get the notion to adopt this idea was tailor made for them. Why would they want to spoil their elegant existence with a trio of hairbrained carpet creepers? No way would people like these two need kids to make life wonderful. This movie makes it look like the real world works this way, but I am the picture of dubiety.",Positive "This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!",Negative "The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.",Negative "Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the ""rational"" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.

If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.",Negative "Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released?",Positive "I can't remember many details about the show, but i remember how passionate i was about it and how i was determined not to miss any episodes. Unfortunately at the time we had no VCR, so i haven't ever seen the series again. However i can remember strongly how i felt while watching it and how thrilled i was every time it came on. Sam Waterstone was my favorite actor these days (i think i was almost in love) and he remains one of my favorite actors to the day, mostly due to his appearance in the series. I would gladly buy/steal/download this series, i think i would go to great lengths in order to see it again and revisit a childhood long gone... Any ideas? Does anybody knows of a site devoted to the series or has the episodes on tape from their first airing?",Positive "it's a weekend i've been watched this funny film. and i really like it. all the kids are cute, who remind me of my own childhood with those stupid thinking. it's a real entertaining movie for a group of families at weekend night, which could make lots of memories and laughters. Kid's humor always work. nice acting as well. simple story but cool shooting. nice job for directer to find the kid's way. when it comes to the kid movie, i think of ""12 and holding"". another one this year but differed aspect to the kid's world, which is real and cruel. awesome work. H2EFW focuses on the happy side of childhood, which every kid and family need. p.s. Twitch, i think, is the voice of Nemo from ""Finding Nemo"".",Positive "Just finished watching the movie and wanted to give my own opinion(and justice) to the movie.

First of all, to get things straight, this movie is not pretending to be anything other than a solid action comedy movie. It doesn't aim to revolutionize the movie industry and garner critical acclaims nor does it want to be regarded as one. If you really want to enjoy this movie to the fullest, I suggest you discard your critical-mindedness and your longing for a good plot because you won't find any in here. With that established, let us further into the movie.

I had low expectations for this movie simply because it didn't have a strong plot(Yes, moviegoers, I underrated this movie as well), but I never expected myself to enjoy this movie that much. I even enjoyed this more than the Stephen Chow flicks(which I find Kung Fu Hustle to be his best effort and would've rated it a 9 as well). Action is tight and epic while comedy chokes on to the right places.

SPOILERS alert, I think The action might be unreal, but why would I want to watch a serious basketball movie anyways? There are a lot other sports movies(drama) that already did it well, why create another? SPOILERS end

I'm not even sure why you're reading this. Go ahead and watch it. Just remember, no thinking - just watch, enjoy, smile, laugh, and

Every once in a while they(the movie industry) creates masterpieces such as Pulp Fiction or The Godfather movies, and sometimes they create movies which are better off in the pile of dump. I'm not saying Kung Fu Dunk deserves the recognition that the previous examples have, then again, if we're talking about Stephen Chow-ish comedy, this one's a top ten.

Highly recommended if you love: -no brainer movies with really good action -Kung Fu -Death Trance -Kung Fu and comedy -what the heck, watch this. you'll have a great time.

9/10 for you the cast of Kung Fu Dunk. ^_^",Positive "*** out of ****

Yep! Dressed To Kill is that kind of a movie. It's like Kalifornia, but it's different. Remember? That movie from 1993 which stars Brad Pitt as a serial killer who is ""welcomed"" by a couple of travelers in a trip to California as a buddy who might be a good company along the way. When I watch a movie, I always like not to know anything at all about the plot, before watching it, because the surprises may get even cooler. That's how it was with Kalifornia. When I watched it last year for the first time, I never realized it was a suspense movie, so when I found out, I was shocked, and when the movie went on and on, it got even better and I was at the edge of my seat, almost kissing my monitor, so close I was to it! So, we're discussing about Dressed To Kill, right? Before I watched this movie (today!), I've only watched 2 others movies from Brian De Palma, so I can say I don't really know that well his works, but can tell from afar that these 2 movies for me were as great as they could be. Carrie (1976) and Mission:Impossible (1996). When I watched Carrie on the TV, I was really that desperate to get a DVD copy and I can tell: this movie is great! Mission:Impossible also. And today, I watched a third movie from DePalma.

Well, Dressed To Kill is a movie like Kalifornia. When the movie goes on, it goes completely different than what you'd expect. I was watching, very curious, the scene of the museum, where Dickinson follows the mysterious man to his cab and they end together in an apartment room. You may guess what may have happened there. But when the movie reached the scene of the elevator, the movie went completely on a different path. I was watching the rest of the movie, and I really liked it. However, there are some low points... Some characters in the movie are completely silent! Take, for example, the mysterious man from the museum scene. I was always hoping that he could say something but he never did! This was totally ridiculous and was with no doubt something that made me change my mind by not accepting this movie as at least almost something as a masterpiece. Even in the cab scene, where Dickinson tries to apologize because of what happened in the museum, the completely silent man grabs her, pulls her inside the cab, and they start kissing each other. You know, it reminded me of the Mexican TV series of the 70's ""El Chavo Del 8"", where some characters are completely silent. Getting past these low points of the movie, it is actually a great movie, considering the suspense, the characters and the plot. Dennis Franz is cool as detective Marino! Reminded me of him as Capt. Carmine Lorenzo in Die Hard 2 (1990) where he plays almost the same kind of character.

Well, concluding this review, the ending of Dressed To Kill is the same ending as it is in Carrie! I don't know if I really liked that, because I hate imitations! I understand that Carrie is a movie from DePalma, so it's not actually an imitation, because after all it was his idea! But it turned to be a repetitive idea in Dressed To Kill, so DePalma could have done something different instead of showing Nancy Allen waking up from a bad dream the same way it happens to Amy Irving at the ending scene of Carrie. This was, of course, with no doubt, another low point. But if you get past this, you will find that Dressed To Kill is a really good movie, and I assure you that it's not, by any means, a waste of time watching it.",Positive "I saw the MST3K version of ""Deathstalker III"" and loved the movie so much -- even ""unmystied"" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of ""Deathstalker"" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.

Nothing about ""Deathstalker I"" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either ""DS 3"" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open ""DS 2"" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.",Negative "This was a very daring film for it's day. It could even be described as soft-core porn for the silent era. It was a talkie, but dialog was extremely limited, and in German. One did not need it anyway.

The young (19) Hedy Lamarr gets trapped in a loveless marriage to an obsessive (stereotype?) German and after a short time in a marriage that was apparently never consummated, returns home to her father.

In a famous and funny scene, she decides to go skinny dipping one morning when her horse is distracted by another. She is then forced to run across a field chasing after it, as she left her clothing on the horse. An engineer retrieves her horse and returns her clothing - after getting an eyeful.

They sit for a while and, in a zen moment, he presents her with a flower with a bee sitting on top. This is where she thinks back to her honeymoon and the actions of her husband and an insect. She knows this man is different.

She returns home and eventually seeks out our young fellow, and finds the ecstasy she was denied. You can use your imagine here, but his head disappears from view and we see her writhing with pleasure. Since he never got undressed, you can imagine... Certainly, an homage to women by the director Gustav Machatý, and a shock to 1933 audiences.

The only thing that mars this beautifully filmed movie is the excessive guilt, and a strange ending.",Positive "Jeffrey Combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form, hoping to breed a brand new species using Hunter Tylo's womb. It won't be easy for Tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend, William Forsythe, isn't about to give her up without a fight.

You see Tylo and Forsythe are two of business executive Arthur Roberts' employees, brilliant minds who meet Combs(..a scientist who once worked for Roberts, and whose vacated position went to Tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. This island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and ""son"". They think it's a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. Combs' son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him, creating this blood-thirsty, flesh-eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(..although, at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). Tylo was dating Combs' son, hence the connection besides the two having worked for Roberts, who brings along his trophy wife, Mariya Ignatova. Also accompanying Tylo and Forsythe, Roberts and Ignatova, are their colleagues, Elise Muller and GR Johnson. Combs traps them in a conference room, but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son.

Like similar sci-fi channel creature features of it's type, Hammerhead:Shark Frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(..where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick-edit, frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. You have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(..ripped to shreds), but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which, truth be told, is rather infuriating. The monster itself is never seen in it's entirety, just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. One thing's for certain, you do see teeth. We do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen, all menacing, ready to feast on flesh. A constant is while(..and after)victims are attacked, we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water's surface(..this is really director Michael Oblowitz's main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners).

Combs doesn't break new ground as the scientist, but he's always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold-blooded resolve. It's fun seeing Forsythe in a rare clean-cut hero role, very against type as an electronics wiz(..to his credit, he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. Tylo is also in a very different kind of role, a scientist who can defend herself quite well. Roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep, and it's kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at Combs' soldiers(..although, his fate is not pleasant). Mentioning that, it was also really entertaining watching Forythe and Tylo downing Combs' hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. As expected, the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins..I mean, seriously, would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do? Beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop.",Negative "I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.

It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.

I'm very angry.",Negative "-me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...

---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.

----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...

2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.

6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war)",Negative "If you merely look at the cover of this movie, it's cool. DON'T. The movie itself put me to sleep. It was slow paced, had minimal violence and a poor use of suspense. The acting was bottom feeder material and the plot, while it would've been cool for a different movie, was poorly shown here. They even kill the only likeable character in the whole film! I give it a 2 out of 10 because the only thing that was good was the plot twist at the end. Other than that, you might want to save yourself from this movie trash.",Negative "I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.",Negative "Vincente Minelli movies are usually worth your time; Meet Me in St Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful. I awaited this movie with great interest. But what a disappointment.

Some Came Running is scene after scene of go-nowhere fatalism. Sinatra is a sad sack, returned from the war to find disappointing family relationships, a disappointing floozy hanging on him, living in disappointing digs as a gal persuades him to finish his disappointing writing project. The movie has a big dramatic finish in which a disappointing villain catches up with Sinatra and MacClane and something disappointing happens. The sequence is intended to be tension-filled but Minelli is no Hitchcock; he gets so distracted by pretty colors, he doesn't notice the scene is a wheezing cliché and the characters are so thinly-drawn and poorly developed we don't particularly care that they get shot. (especially MacClane) But that's the only real cinematography in the project. Otherwise we look at constipated characters standing around bars & living rooms getting on each others nerves for two hours. Hell IS other people, apparently.

There is nothing going on in this movie. The dilemma of soldiers returning to displacement and indifference after WW2 is handled more deftly in 'The Best Years of Our Lives.' And either of two Inge products, 'Splendor in the Grass' and 'Picnic' covers the desperation of being trapped in a dead-end town, with much more poignance.",Negative "The only reason I wanted to see this was because of Orlando Bloom. Simply put, the movie was spectacularly average. It's not bad, but it's really not very good. The editing is good; the film is well-paced. The direction is competent and assured. The story is plodding. The film is averagely acted by Ledger, Bloom, and the normally great Watts and Rush. The accents are impenetrable if you're from the US so just sit back and enjoy the scenery (or as I like to call it, Orlando Bloom). By the end of the film, I was neither bored nor moved. Some people have asked what happened to Ned Kelly at the end of the movie. I have to say, I so did not care by that point.

Really, the only reason I can recommend this is that Orlando Bloom kind of, sort of shows some hints of range (although the oft-present ""I'm pretty and confused"" look is prominent), so fangirls may find it worth the matinee price. Other than that, just don't see it. It's neither good enough nor bad enough to be entertaining.",Positive "After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.

The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.

The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.

Give this one a miss.",Negative "Nice character development in a pretty cool milieu. Being a male, I'm probably not qualified to totally understand it, but they do a nice job of establishing the restrictive Victorian environment from the start. It isn't as bleak as it really was and the treatment of women was probably even harsher. What makes this go is a wonderful chemistry among the principal characters. Each has their own ""thing"" that they contend with. Once they come out of the rain and break out of the spider webs, they begin to interact and slowly lose their sense of suspicion. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it didn't go for cheap comedy when it could have. It didn't try to pound a lesson into us. The people who seem utterly without merit are really nicely developed human beings who get to see the light. I did have a little trouble with the Alfred Molina character having such an epiphany so quickly, but, within this world, it needed to happen. Good acting all around with something positive taking place in the lives of some pretty good people.",Positive "Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. ""Sniper"" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill.",Positive "Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.

Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.

By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.

Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.

Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has ""Attack of the Monsters"" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!""",Negative "I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by ""gems"", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.

My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.

The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. ""WHAT STRENGTH!"" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.

The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.

And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.",Negative "This particular episode of Smallville is probably the best episode to air since reunion. This is for many reasons. For example, it takes the series back to some of it's roots. It welcomes back Lionel from a supposedly long absence, with the Luthorcorp plaza office in Metropolis. This room hasn't been in smallville for a very long time, and seeing it again brings back many memories from the smallville's past. Not to mention, Lionels conversations with Lex are always admirable.

Another pleasant return is, well uv guessed it, is Bart Allen(aka Impulse), AC(aka Aquaman) and Victor Stone(aka Cyborg). Not only does Steven Deknight reunite the former justice leaguers, he blends them in with the Smallville formula in such a unique way, that it almost feels like it is a feature length movie.

From there you get the basic story, Green Arrow forms the league, attempts to blow up 33.1, Bart gets captured, Clark saves him, and the facility is blown to kingdom com. All is good and graceful, with a good mix of stealth, action, pace and suspense. Oh, and Cyborg has some cool new upgrades true to the justice league character :).

The music is probably what makes this episode work so well. If you remember correctly, the first episode Steven Deknight directed was Agless from Season 4. This was a mediocre episode, but something felt out of place. maybe it was the music, or the acting, or the fact clark sais at the end ""we didn't find you, you found us"", kind of made people lose faith in the formula. But thankfully Steve Deknight redeemed himself in this Justice episode.

I had a few quivvles about Justice that made it fall short of the full 10. First of all, the far too cheesy exit of the justice league from the Ridge facility expolsion. I mean it would have been soo much cooler if say Green Arrow and Cyborg took off on Oliver's bike (rememeber from the arrow episode). Clark and Impulse should have obviously ran, and aquaman should have swam via another route. But that was soo incredibly cheesy, it nocked off 2 points from the full 10.

Secondly, another cheesy moment, not as bad as the first, but when Green Arrow sais ""let's go save the world"". That made me cringe. All in all, judging by the acting performances, music, direction and production values, the pros do outweigh the cons, and this is still one of the best episodes in smallville history, and maybe the 2nd best episode in season 6.

7 Out of 10...",Positive "You all know the story of ""Hamlet"". I do.

Well, the ""To Be Or Not To Be"" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find ""Hamlet"" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: ""Julius Caesar"" and ""Romeo & Juliet"" are ten times better, with ""A Midsummer Night's Dream"" and ""Othello"" not too far behind. ""Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)"" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.

I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.

Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for ""Hamlet"", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).

While ""Blood Waters of Dr. Z"" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from ""Future War"": ""Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies""), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.

The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like ""Prince of Space"") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like ""Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!"" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.

The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film.

Four stars for ""Hamlet""; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.

PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K!",Negative I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .,Positive "**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet.

And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.

Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes.

In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.

And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.

I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.

It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.",Negative "What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.

The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.

Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.",Negative "Ever wonder why Pacific Islanders seem to automatically assume the sense of humour of Black Americans? regardless of their ethnic origins? Well this film will not provide any answers to this often pondered question - but it will provide an excellent case study.

From its onset this film acts as a sort of ""Old School"" for Pacific Island New Zealanders, which immediately raises the question what exactly is the point of such a task. Is it meant to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes of Pacific Island New Zealanders? or is it intended to exploit this potential market? The story is weak, jokes humorless, and the ending is expected. This film has done nothing for New Zealand cinema, as it is merely an appropriated romantic comedy that is devoid of any merit.",Negative "This was the third Muppet movie and the last one Jim Henson was around to take part in the making of before his premature death in 1990. The first three films starring the famous characters were all made and released into theatres before I was born. I originally saw the first and second installments in the original trilogy, ""The Muppet Movie"" and ""The Great Muppet Caper"", around the mid-nineties, as a kid, but didn't see this third one, ""The Muppets Take Manhattan"", until April 2007. This was shortly after I had seen its two predecessors and 1996's ""Muppet Treasure Island"" for the first time in many years. This third Muppet movie definitely didn't disappoint me the first time I saw it, and my second viewing nearly three years later may not have impressed me as much, but if not, it certainly didn't go too far downhill.

The Muppets' stage musical, ""Manhattan Melodies"", turns out to be a big hit on their college campus. They are graduating from college, so they will soon be leaving, but decide they will all stay together and go to Manhattan to try and get their show on Broadway. After their arrival, they begin searching for a producer, but after many rejections, they finally decide to part and go find jobs. Most of them leave town, but Kermit stays, and is still determined to find the right producer and reunite the Muppet gang. He gets a job at a New York restaurant owned by a man named Pete. The frog quickly befriends Pete's daughter, Jenny, an aspiring fashion designer who currently works at her father's restaurant as a waitress. As Kermit continues his attempts to reach stardom, now with the help of Jenny, he doesn't know that Miss Piggy has secretly stayed in New York and is now spying on him. She begins to see Kermit and Jenny together, and to her it looks like they're getting close, which leads to jealousy!

When I saw this movie for the second time, it looked disappointing at first. It seemed a little rushed, unfocused, and maybe even forgettable around the beginning. There are some funny bits during this part of the film, such as Animal chasing a woman through the audience on the college campus, but for a little while, the film seemed bland to me compared to its two predecessors. Fortunately, it wasn't long before that changed. The film is entertaining for the most part, with ""Saying Goodbye"", the poignant song the Muppets sing as they part, and a lot that happens after that. The two funniest parts MIGHT be Miss Piggy's tantrums after she sees Kermit and Jenny hugging, but there were definitely many other times when I laughed, such as poor Fozzie trying to hibernate with other bears. The Muppets still have their charm and comical antics, which obviously also helps carry the movie for the most part, as does the plot, a simple but intriguing one for all ages. There are some weaker moments, such as the Muppet babies sequence, and Juliana Donald's performance as Jenny is lacklustre, but neither of these problems are too significant, and are far from enough to ruin the entire experience.

I would say ""The Muppet Movie"", the film that started the franchise in 1979, is the best of the original trilogy, and that seems to be the most popular opinion. This third film is probably the weakest of the three, but all of them are good. Unlike ""Muppets From Space"", the third of the theatrical films in the franchise made after Henson's sad passing, at least ""The Muppets Take Manhattan"" is still the Muppets! I won't go into details about what I think of the Muppets' 1999 film, released twenty years after their first one, since I've already explained in my review of it why I found it so disappointing, and even though it does have some appeal, I'm clearly not alone. However, every theatrical movie starring the lovable Muppets that was made during Henson's life is good entertainment for the whole family, even if the second and third installment each showed a slight decline in quality after the one that directly preceded it.",Positive "I am very sorry to say this but ""Thunderbirds"" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a ""spoof"" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.",Negative "Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)",Positive "IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote ""character?"") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall.",Positive "I used to love watching this. I had no idea it was part of a larger series. I must have been 6 or so at the time it was on TV. I just thought it was funny and for some reason I had a deep fascination for something that was clear that was in the president's pile of bathtub toys. My parents had taped this off of TV when it originally aired on NBC. The tape even had the old Sanka coffee commercial along with a few others. I'm planning on returning home sometime soon and will try to record the tape onto my computer so that those who want a copy can do so. If anyone of you would like to contact me, I think you can do that through the IMDb site feel free. I will keep you updated and let you know when I have the show in a digital format.",Positive "Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.

Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.",Negative All I can say after watching Snitch'd is please stop Mr. Cahill. It is painfully clear you have no understanding of what you make movies about. If you insist on making movies about gangsters I urge you to do research. It's comical to watch movies with absurd gangbangers that even sound more absurd when they speak.

I laughed at the part when Mr. Cahill goes to a school with only 3 students and proceeds to kick their butts in kung fu fashion. This movie was tough as an after school special. Who had the idea to have hats worn that say where a particular gangbanger was from?. I suspect real gangbangers do not wear hats claiming there gang. That would be stupid considering new laws that add length to a prison term if a person is gang related.

Snitch'd is the WORST gangbanger movie ever made.,Negative "Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in ""Sands of Iwo Jima"") tried his hand at a big musical with ""I Dream of Jeanie."" Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.

Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, ""O Susannah."" Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.

This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.

But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.

""I Dream of Jeanie"" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.

This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.",Negative "(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...)

Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper!

It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.

Other factors, I think, are the ""closeness"" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!",Positive "This movie blows you off your feet. This debut movie from Tom Barman (known from the Belgian rock band dEUS) introduces you to 8 intriguing people, building blocks of a compelling movie mosaic. They each survive one day and one night in the metropole of Antwerp. Barman paints his characters with great deal of verve and competently interweaves their individual stories, a tour the force that reminds of the best work of Robert Altman and Paul Thomas Anderson. The patchwork of anecdotes surprises, moves, amuses; the dialogues are so natural, they seem to be improvised. Some great performances by Matthias Schoenaerts, Natali Broods and the extremely funny duo from Ghent, Jonas Boel and Titus De Voogdt. Sam Louwyck is the memorable ""Windman"", a bizarre guy dancing throughout the movie. Sam is also responsible for the stunning choreography, and of course Tom Barman himself took care of the ultra cool Sound Track. We were seriously impressed: Any Way The Wind Blows is a movie that blows you off your feet.",Positive "Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of ""Born Yesterday,"" and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.

It never happened. In ""It Should Happen to You"" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.

Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Grade: C",Negative "A patient escapes from a mental hospital, killing one of his keepers and then a University professor after he makes his way to the local college. Next semester, the late prof's replacement and a new group of students have to deal with a new batch of killings. The dialogue is so clichéd it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk. Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! ""Splatter University"" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining. Skip it and rent ""Girl's Nite Out"" instead.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Profanity, Brief Nudity and Sexual Situations.",Negative A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.,Positive "but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.",Negative "The ""Men in White"" movie is definitely one of the funniest, if not THE funniest, comedy movies I ever watched! (and I watched quite a lot!) It is about two garbagemen, who become ""Men in White"" and then stop an invasion from space. It is also a parody of lots of classic movies, such as ""Men in Black"", ""Star Wars"" or ""Dr. Strangelove"". Anyone who says that this movie is crappy has something wrong with his head. There are tons of funny gags and jokes here, and you might actually get injury to your mouth from laughing too hard (it happened to me!). If you can watch this movie on TV, watch it now - you certainly won't regret it!",Positive This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10,Negative "As a matter of fact, this is one of those movies you would have to give 7.5 to. The fact is; as already stated, it's a great deal of fun. Wonderfully atmospheric. Askey does indeed come across as over the top, but it's a great vehicle for him, just as Oh, Mr Porter is for Will hay. If you like old dark house movies and trains, then this is definitely for you.

Strangely enough it's the kind of film that you'll want to see again and again. It's friendly and charming in an endearing sort of way with all of the nostalgic references that made great wartime fare. The 'odd' band of characters simply play off each other as they do in many another typical British wartime movie. It would have been wonderful to have seen this film if it had been recorded by Ealing studios . A real pity that the 1931 original has not survived intact",Positive "Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.

I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.

Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is ""mirror"". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.

Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.

This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.

Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.

In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.",Negative "LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film ""Le Mouton Enrage"" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this ""lost"" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the ""Special Features"" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.)",Positive "Most of the feedback I've heard concerning Meatball Machine has been pretty mixed. A couple even saying that they think ""it sucked"". Well, to those people I say, get some f@ckin imagination and go f@ck yourself. This was a very entertaining flick.

The story starts with this mechanical bug which attacks and somehow transforms its hosts into these Gwar-costume looking, deathbots called Necroborgs. Eventually you learn that these mechanical bugs also attach a little parasite onto you, which then is able to control your actions due to hot-wiring your nervous system. Unfortunately for two love-seeking lonely young adults, they happen to cross paths with the mechanical bug, and before you know it transformations are taking place and blood is being splattered. Is there a way to stop the transformation? Maybe a way to stop this mechanical bug threat? Why do the Necroborgs fight one another? Do the two desperate singles get to express their feelings for one another and do the nasty? Only one way to find out.

Going into Meatball Machine I was kinda wary due to the mixed reactions, but it turned out being a great surprise. A few unanswered questions, some average acting at times and a slightly confusing ending are the only weak points I can think of. From the anime feel to it, to the parasites becoming little characters themselves and even to the low budget feel, this movie hits the right mark much more than it misses. With a ever-developing story that's interesting enough to keep oneself asking questions throughout mixed with the cool make-up effects and blood splatter, this is one flick fans of bizarro/horror/Tetsuo/splatter fans should check out. 8 outta 10",Positive "One of the great things about many of the superb Chinese movies you can find, if you are lucky, in the video stores, is they are very accurate retellings of actual, true stories. Farewell, my Concubine, The Emperor and the Assassin and this movie are perfect examples. The film makers take a true story and work hard to accurately create a movie without compromising the facts for dramatic or commercial convenience -- the hallmark of much Hollywood, and especially Disney films.

In this story we follow the later years of an famous local street performer dubbed the King of Masks for his mastery of Sichuan Change Art. Along an having lost his only son many years earlier, he searches to find a male heir to carry on his rare and dying art in a society that forbids females to have such work. Master Wang is sold a son by a slave trader. All is well as he joyfully prepares to pass down his art. But the son eventually is found out to be a girl. From there, the story get very interesting, with a good performance by Master Liang of the Sichuan Opera -- a regional operatic style related to Peking Opera. Fans of Farewell My Concubine should look carefully at Master Liang's portrayal of a male playing the female role in Chinese Opera. It may help them come to understand that the players of these female roles were probably not homosexuals or castrati, but people who have be so psychologically conditioned as to be totally unaware of their own sexuality.",Positive "This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, ""sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts"" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.",Negative "Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is fun—it is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. ""Arzenta"" is an unpretentious ,yet very likable film—much better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth.

I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.

The score is very fine, with a good introductory song—making felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.

In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).

""Arzenta"" is interestingly filmed—an ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc..",Positive """The True Story Of The Friendship That Shook South Africa And Awakened The World.""

Richard Attenborough, who directed ""A Bridge Too Far"" and ""Gandhi"", wanted to bring the story of Steve Biko to life, and the journey and trouble that journalist Donald Woods went through in order to get his story told. The films uses Wood's two books for it's information and basis - ""Biko"" and ""Asking for Trouble"".

The film takes place in the late 1970's, in South Africa. South Africa is in the grip of the terrible apartheid, which keeps the blacks separated from the whites and classifies the whites as the superior race. The blacks are forced to live in shantytowns on the outskirts of the cities and towns, and they come under frequent harassment by the police and the army. We are shown a dawn raid on a shantytown, as bulldozers and armed police force their way through the camp beating and even killing the inhabitants. Then we are introduced to Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), who is the editor of a popular newspaper. After publishing a negative story about black activist Steve Biko (Denzel Washington), Woods goes to meet with him. The two are wary of each other at first, but they soon become good friends and Biko shows the horrors of the apartheid system from a black persons point of view to Woods. This encourages Woods to speak out against what's happening around him, and makes him desperate to bring Steve Biko's story out of the clutches of the white man's South Africa and to the world. Soon, Steve Biko is arrested and is killed in prison. Now Woods and his family are daring to escape from South Africa to England, where Woods can publish his book about Steve Biko and the apartheid.

When I first heard of ""Cry Freedom"", I was under the impression that it was a movie completely dedicated to the life of Steve Biko. I had never actually heard of Steve Biko before I seen this film, as the events in this film were really before my time. But it's more about the story of Donald Woods and his journey across the border into Lesotho as he tried to elude the South African officials. Woods was put on a five year type house arrest after Steve Biko was killed. So in order to publish his manuscript on Steve Biko, he had to escape. Because the manuscript would be considered treason in South Africa and that could have resulted in Woods meeting a fate similar to that of Biko's. The real Donald Woods and his wife acted as consultants to this film.

Denzel Washington is only in the film for the first hour, and I was disappointed with that as I was expecting to see him for the entire movie. But he was amazing as Steve Biko, and captured his personality from what I've read really well and his accent sounded perfect. His performance earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Kevin Kline delivers a excellent and thought-evoking performance as Donald Woods, and Penelope Wilton is excellent as his wife Wendy.

Filming took place in Zimbabwe, as needless to say problems arose when they tried to film it in South Africa. While in South Africa, the South African gestapo followed the film crew everywhere, so they got the bad vibes and they pulled out and went to neighbouring Zimbabwe instead. Despite everything, and the fact that the apartheid didn't end 'til seven years later, ""Cry Freedom"" wasn't banned in South Africa. But cinemas showing the movie received bomb threats.

Richard Attenborough brings the horrors of the apartheid to the screen with extreme force and determination. He doesn't hold back at the end of the movie when showing what was supposed to be a peaceful protest by students in a shantytown, turns into a massacre when police open fire on them. The film ends with the names of all the anti-apartheid movers who died in prison, and the explanations for their deaths. Many had ""No Explanation"". Quite a few were ""Epilepsy"", which is hard to believe, and many more either fell from the top of the stairs or were ""Suicide from Hanging"". No one will ever know what really happened to them, but I think it's fair to say that none of these men died at their own hands, but at the hands of others; or to be more precise, at the hands of the police.

""Cry Freedom"" is a must-see movie for it's portrayal and story of Steve Biko. It's also a searing and devastating portrayal of a beautiful land divided and in the hellish grips of racial segregation and violence.",Positive "Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of ""An Inconvenient Truth."" So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at ""An Inconvenient Truth"" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed ""global Warming"" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is ""getting warmer"" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a ""New Ice Age"". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed ""Global Warming."" Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced ""An Inconvenient Truth"" were really honest, they would have titled their film ""Al Gore Wants Attention."" But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled ""Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends.""",Negative "A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.

First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.

It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.

The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.

Overall, it is a good family movie.

",Positive Most definitely the worst Columbo ever dreamt up. No murder and the abandonment of the tried and tested formula makes this a real drag. Falk looks bored throughout and so will you be if you waste anytime watching this.,Negative "This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this.",Negative "I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.

The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie.",Positive "I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film ""does not work"", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.

But, hey, that's the nature of people.

Andrew.",Positive "Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer.",Positive "This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series.

The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.

I give it 10/10 rating.",Positive "the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats ""dole scum"" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it!",Positive "I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a ""smoke-filled bar"" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work!",Positive "When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.

Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.

Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.

Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.

Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.

Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.

And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's ""perfect crime"" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.

Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't.",Negative "This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment ""India""), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today – he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment ""Egypt"", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.",Positive "I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.",Negative "As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie.",Negative "Amazing effects for a movie of this time. A primer of the uselessness of war and how war becomes a nurturer of itself.

A wonderful thing about this movie is it is now public domain and available at archive.org. No charge, no sign up necessary. Watch it in one sitting and you will be propelled.

I plan to share this flick with as many people as possible as I had never heard of it before and I am a hard core sci fi fan.

I would like to see how others react to this movie.

Watch it.

Rate it.

Tell us what you think.",Positive "Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.

The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.

The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.

Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.

My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq.",Negative "I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.

Some spoilers.

He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten.

Here we have the old adage: ""love conquers all, even disease."" Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.

Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud",Negative Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.

Larissa,Positive "Steven Spielberg (at 24) had already directed two superb episodes of a 1971 series called ""The Psychiatrist"", starring Roy Thinnes. One episode had been about an emotionally troubled 12-year old boy and the other was about a vibrant young man (Clu Gulager in his best performance) who is dying of cancer. Both episodes were stunning, visually unlike anything else on TV, and emotionally complex and adult. The creators of ""The Psychiatrist"" were Richard Levinson and William Link, who created ""Columbo"" and also produced its first season.

Peter Falk insisted on first rank, experienced TV directors for the first season of ""Columbo"", like Bernard Kowalski and Jack Smight. But Falk agreed to Spielberg after watching part of the Clu Gulagher episode of ""The Psychiatrist"".

Spielberg says on the DVD of ""Duel"" that he loved Steven Bochco's ""Murder by the Book"" script (based on a Levinson/Link story), and he tried to make the production look like a million dollar feature, even thought he had a lot less money to work with.

This episode of ""Columbo"" is far more visually stylish and makes better use of the sound track and background music than almost any other ""Columbo"" episode, even though the series always used top directors. Spielberg manages to keep the great Falk and Cassidy from hamming it up too much, but both actors are still a lot of fun. Spielberg also gets fine supporting work from Martin Milner, Rosemary Forsyth and Barbara Colby. All the performances have a freshness and vitality about them. The only ""Columbo"" episode that was close to being as well directed is the ""By Dawn's Early Light"" episode with Patrick McGoohan (directed by Harvey Hart).

I think the two episodes of ""The Psychiatrist"" and this episode of ""Columbo"" suggest Spielberg hasn't developed technically all that much as a director. He was great from the beginning. In a ""Combat!"" DVD commentary of a 1962 episode guest starring Albert Salmi, Robert Altman says that episode was pretty much as good as he ever got as a director. Maybe the same is true of Spielberg.",Positive "Beast Wars is a show that is over-hyped, overpraised and overrated. Let's meet the characters of this obnoxious show whose creators must have been on acid to try and make a show like this.

Cheetor- Seriously, they need to have censor bars on this guy. How come he dosen't creep out the viewers having the same voice as baby Taz? (at least Razzoff from Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc is voiced by Slip & Slide) Action Blast- If you want a line of show that suck, get G4 Tranceformers Cybertron- A show that should go down in a toilet. Good Job Creators (Sarcasm) Show it self-Retarded & boring (at least the Super Mario games are better) This show had a lot of followers sayin' bring it back, but I believe that it was cancelled for its own good.",Negative "I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their ""Top 100 of all time"" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed!",Positive "I have decided to not believe what famous movie critics say. Even though this movie did not get the best comments, this movie made my day. It got me thinking. What a false world this is.

What do you do when your most loved ones deceive you. It's said that no matter how often you feed milk to a snake, it can never be loyal and will bite when given a chance. Same way some people are such that they are never grateful. This movie is about how selfish people can be and how everyone is ultimately just thinking about oneself and working for oneself.

A brother dies inadvertently at the hands of a gangster. The surviving brother decides to take revenge. Through this process, we learn about the futility of this world. Nothing is real and no one is loyal to anyone.

Amitabh gave the performance of his life. The new actor Aryan gave a good performance. The actress who played the wife of Amitabh stole the show. Her role was small but she portrayed her role so diligently that one is moved by her performance. Chawla had really great face expressions but her role was very limited and was not given a chance to fully express herself.

A great movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi. His movies always give some message to the audience. His movies are like novels of Nanak Singh (a Punjabi novelist who's novels always had a purpose and targeted a social evil) because they have a real message for the audience. They are entertaining as well as lesson-giving.",Positive "This is the sort of thing that only now thrills the film eggheads. After all, Feierstein's Flex Crush will have you know that Real Men don't watch anything by Truffaut.

It might have been interesting if Truffaut had anything to -say- here. The camera-as-voyeur motif was nothing new. Have we all forgotten De Sica's ""Bicycle Thief""? Or anything by Hitchcock?

So all we get is the extended metaphor of the juvenile as Truffaut, who spends all his free time 'screwing up his eyes' at the movies, who wrecks schoolroom discipline, gets accused of plagiarism(the many petty thefts), and ultimately escapes societal confines to make 'his own movie'. Sorry...been there, done that too many times for this to matter.",Negative "This movie is horrible. THe acting is a waste basket. No crying, no action, hopeless songs. Though the scenery is great. I have always wanted to go to Greece.

Anyway, as for Saif, you'd expect a great performance, but even he let down the people.

Akshay Kumar, recognized as the pimp of Bollywood and the voice of Singhs. He was sensational in this movie. For only this performance, Filmfare should introduce another award. The toiletries award for the worst performance. By the way the trophy should be a toilet seat.

Kareena Kapoor. She first of all is not comparable to her sister Karisma. In acting, in looks, or in body. She now wants to prove to herself that she surpasses her. She comes into this movie wearing bikini's and tank tops and short shorts. I really wonder why Saif Ali Khan is letting his wife-to-be dress like that. But, she must've impressed some people dressing like that. And if you ask how, then consider every man is having an erection watching this movie. They are dreaming of having Kareena Kapoor in bed naked with a condom. Including me. Personally I think that she dressed like a whore, but I really liked it.

I am forced to give it a 1/10, but I'd really give this movie a 0/10. An unachieved film.",Negative I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad!,Positive "I was in the film too, but i don't know if they actually put this scene in. On the way back from a school trip (in 2005) we stopped at a service station at the same time as they were doing the film, and we were asked (the whole of us) to run in and shout Go! Freebird! We were all around 10 years old, could anyone who has seen the film tell me if that part was actually kept in the film, it would be great to know! I remember I thought the film had never come out, because it was another 2 and a half years before it was released. All of your comments seem to be good so I'm guessing it has been quite a successful film, I might buy it, but first I would like to know if I'm in it! :D Thank you",Positive "Just saw this movie today at the Seattle International Film Festival, and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Great writing and direction, excellent and believable interaction among the cast, and great comic timing as well.

This movie touches on themes that are universal-family and separation. As a result, I can see European, Asian, and American audiences all finding points of similarity between this film and their own lives.

If all that wasn't enough, this has the potential to be the best underground date movie of the year...somebody distribute this in the USA, please!

Finally: thank you Maria Flom! It really is a great film.",Positive "Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.",Negative "A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.

This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.

In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10",Positive """Xizao"", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.

The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.

The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.

The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.

The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.

Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing ""old days were much better"" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.

An awesome, and touching film. 8/10",Positive "This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply

pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds

through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even

briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.",Negative "The literary genius of Vladimir Navokov is brought to the screen again and many in the cultured world will take notice. The director puts us in check mate with the story of Alexander, an absentminded chaplinesque study of chess addiction. Nastasya is vacationing in a marble columned resort where a chess championship is being hosted. She meets Alexander by picking up a queen piece he drops thru his coat pocket. A magnetic attraction evolves whereby he proposes the next day, the mother alarmed telegrams the husband. He arrives and questioning Alexander we get these fades to the past, ala' Godfather II, where we see young Alexander, a child prodigy. He is taken under a school teachers wing and exploits his genius for 10 yrs making vast sums. Thinking Alexander reached his peak, abandons him but becomes legend. The old teacher returns causing harm, trying to give victory to an old rival of Alexander. In a serious chess game where World Chess Champion victory is one way to immortality, the chess clock ticks, match time ends to conclude the next day. That day is Nastasya's wedding, the old teacher interferes and Alexander is sent on a nervous breakdown. Nastasya, holding her stomach and looking thru her love's coat finds his strategy for the match and follows the moves. Though the film unfortunately sways from its Russian roots, its low back cut dresses are lovely, Alexander plays his role sublimely.The director underestimated her audience, we hardly ever get to play and the only hint of The Luzhin Defense is after trading queens, isolate the opponents King with your 3 paws & King, sacrificing the castle for mate. Nastasya is a great match, but feel its conclusion deserved more intensity, but maybe the emotions were right on check for chess meant more to him than her. The Luzhin Defense elegantly gives Navokov honor, the complexity of his work in images is a world event not to be missed.",Positive "I happened across ""Bait"" on cable one night just as it started and thought, ""Eh, why not?"" I'm glad I gave it a chance.

""Bait"" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film.

Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.

The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.

I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx.",Positive "It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.

I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.

Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette.

With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.

There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.

After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.",Negative "On one level, this film can bring out the child in us that just wants to build sandcastles and throw stuff in the air just for the sake of seeing it fall down again. On a deeper level though, it explores a profound desire to reconnect with the land. I thoroughly empathized with the artist when he said, ""when I'm not out here (alone) for any length of time, I feel unrooted.""

I considered Andy Goldsworthy one of the great contemporary artists. I'm familiar with his works mainly through his coffee-table books and a couple art gallery installations. But to see his work in motion, captured perfectly through Riedelsheimer's lens, was a revelation. Unfrozen in time, Goldsworthy's creations come alive, swirling, flying, dissolving, crumbling, crashing.

And that's precisely what he's all about: Time. The process of creation and destruction. Of emergence and disappearing. Of coming out of the Void and becoming the Universe, and back again. There's a shamanic quality about him, verging on madness. You get the feeling, watching him at work, that his art is a lifeforce for him, that if he didn't do it, he would whither and perish.

Luckily for us, Goldsworthy is able to share his vision through the communication medium of photography. Otherwise, with the exception of a few cairns and walls, they would only exist for one person.",Positive "Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.

When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.

The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.

The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.

This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the ""see it again and again"" category.",Negative "I watched the presentation of this on PBS in the U.S. when it originally aired in 1988 (?). Assuming the miniseries was available on DVD I purchased first editions of all three books last year. Since then I have been searching for the series on internet movie sites. Today I found this web site. I will give up the search.

I too would like to buy this complete - 26 episodes - miniseries. After buying the DVDs I would read each book, then watch the episodes for that book. That is what I did with John LeCarre's Karla trilogy and Larry McMurty's Texas ranger trilogy.

Does anyone have any suggestions for great books or book series that became very good TV miniseries - or movie series - that are now available on DVD?",Positive "I watched this knowing almost nothing about it, other than the brief description I read here. After watching it I was originally going to say that the director shows promise but seems kind of amateurish, then I looked at the other stuff he's done to see if this was his first or second movie, but no, he did House on Haunted Hill and Fear Dot Com. He sort of missed the mark on both those movies and it was the same with this one.

The story was pretty awful too, could someone just fall in love with a girl because she's pretty but has the mind of a child? I gave it a 3 because there were some visuals that I rather enjoyed near the end but as a whole this movie is pretty terrible.",Negative """El Mar"" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.

We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.

When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.

Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.

""El Mar"" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer.",Positive "In the fifties the age restrictions for films in Brazil were the following: no restriction, 10 years old, 14 years old and 18 years old. Usually the westerns were allowed for ten years old, when they had a bit more of violence they would go to 14, but it was rare to see a western restricted for younger than 18. Winchester 73 was one of those, and I think this explains very well how this film was considered different from average. The hero, James Stewart was fighting against his own brother who had killed their father. He was looking for revenge and seemed quite traumatized, far from the average good guy. Anthony Mann tried variations on this type of character in the next films he did with Stewart. Shelley Winters, the leading lady was far from virtuous, she kept following the man who stayed with the rifle. Dan Duryea as Waco Johnnie Dean is one of those great villains that will always be remembered. The story of the film, which always follows the man who stays with the rifle, is one of the best suited for a western. It was to be made into a Fritz Lang film, which did not come through. When it was offered to Mann he made a point of starting from zero again and not taking anything that was prepared for Lang. With Winchester, Mann created a different conception of western, but still maintaining all its traditions. Winchester still is a great film to see again and again, but nothing will be comparable to the impression it made in those who saw it when it was originally released.",Positive "My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).",Positive "One of the best records of Israel's response to the murder of Rabin.Extremely true and natural, it captured the spirit of the nation.Especially important was the response of young people to the trauma of Israel's loss and the feeling that we shall overcome.",Positive "But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.

Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie.",Positive "Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portman…if there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.

For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you.",Negative "A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.

It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.

I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed.",Positive "Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.",Positive "These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.

Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the ""shocking"" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.",Negative This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO),Positive "At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.",Negative "This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.

The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.",Negative "Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.

This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like ""Barracuda"" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.

Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker)

My Grade: F

Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for ""Bonnie's Kids"" (features nudity), ""the Centerfold Girls"", ""Part-time Wife"" (features nudity), ""Psychic Killer"", & ""Eaten Alive"". The DVD also comes with 1978's ""Barracuda""",Negative "I couldn't wait to get my hands on this one, when I read about Fred Astaire teaming up with George Burns & Gracie Allen in a movie with a script by P.G. Wodehouse and music by the Gershwins. It is definitely worth seeing, but lacks the cohesive quality of the Fred & Ginger movies.

The story would probably be better to read in a Wodehouse book, where the humor comes across better. Some of the acting is downright painful to watch (notably the young boy and the damsel).

But...! The funhouse dance is worth more than most movies. I never knew that Gracie Allen could dance, but boy does she in this movie. Have you ever tried to remain standing on one of those spinning discs in a funhouse? Imagine tapdancing on one in high heels! She keeps up wonderfully with Astaire and adds greatly to the overall quality of the picture.

Several nice songs, particularly fun are Nice Work if you Can Get It and Stiff Upper Lip.

Recommended for fans of Astaire, Burns & Allen. I had to go back and re-watch the funhouse dance as soon as the credits rolled.",Positive "Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!",Positive "The Brothers Quay are directors, judging by conventional thought, should have stuck to making short films. I myself actually really liked their first feature, Institute Benjamenta, but judging by their sophomore effort, The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes, I'm willing to agree they don't come close to equaling their past genius at feature length. Piano Tuner is, without a doubt, a gorgeous film to look at, and often to listen to. Unfortunately, it's borderline painful to sit through with its convoluted narrative and glacial pace. Reading the plot synopsis, it sounds like a pretty good story. But the Brothers fail miserably to bring it to life. One thing they should consider avoiding completely in the future: dialogue. My God, it's awful here. A huge bust.",Negative "Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her!",Positive "The third installment of the ""Carnosaur"" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the ""Carnosaur"" and ""Xtro"" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an ""Alien"" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the ""Xtro"" franchise, all the ""Carnosaur"" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the ""sequels,"" I guess. Obviously ""Carnosaur"" and ""Xtro"" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two.",Negative "A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.

Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.

Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.",Negative "Just when it was easy to assume that a costume drama about royalty couldn't go anywhere, we are given a treat, a moving and intelligent drama anchored by strong and charismatic performances by Emily Blunt, a marvel in the leading role, Paul Bettany, Rupert Friend, Miranda Richardson, and Mark Strong, as the immediate forces that help shape the development of one of England's most powerful monarchs. ""The Young Victoria"" dramatizes the tumultuous transition of the young woman into power.

Emily plays the queen, with a good combination of raw strength and innocence, someone who recognizes the complexity of the task at hand, but who possesses enough confidence to move forward. She is able to portray Victoria, as an astute young woman who knows she needs support from some key players and must be able to stand up to those who might now have her best interests at hand.

Victoria must fend a barrage of intrusions on her way to the crown, and even when she takes command of her new position, she discovers the road to self sufficiency will depend on making some very important decisions and of course, the right support. Luckily for Victoria, there is Albert, a man who appears to like her and is her soul mate. There is amazing chemistry between the two performers, and there's little doubt what the outcome will be, but there is the figure of Bettany's Prime Minister, a man who provides Victoria with some wise support and is also fond of her.

Miranda Richardson and Mark Strong shine in supporting roles as two parties who might be of questionable character and exert a considerable amount of power in the upbringing of the young girl. Every one of the supporting characters could use a bit more of development, but what we can see in the screen might be enough to keep us focused on the central character and a superb performance by Blunt, an actress who has shown enough fire and passion in previous performances. In here, she is given the breakout role of her career, a real life historical figure, who broke the rules and managed to rule for a very long time. She shows the seeds of the strength and character the monarch might have needed in her later years. She also has a sweetness and innocence that became the foundation of her charitable work and future intervention in social changes.

""The Young Victoria"" is not a royal epic portrayal of England's ruling class. It is an intimate story of how human beings grow up and whatever special circumstances surround and shape them. In the end, the movie is a lovely entry in a year that has shown much emphasis on war and destruction. In here, there is a message that good writing and good mediation can take us very far, and there is of course, a good old fashioned love story.",Positive "Sunday July 16, 8:00pm The Castro, San Francisco

""As a Southern colonel your make-up is very Indiana""

The yammering gossips of Hollywood have managed to sling more than a little mud in Marion Davies direction over the years. That she had fame handed to her and was undeserving, is often speculated. Considering the mawkish dramas she was so often pushed into, this criticism would seem to have some validity. As a comedienne however, her star shone very brightly. Left to pursue a career in light comedy and slapstick she might have rivaled Mabel Normand. One of her better outings was King Vidor's Show People (1928), which survives and is so well known largely because MGM filled it with star cameos. This happy coincidence inadvertently saved what is surely among the best work of its two stars, Davies and that notorious Joe College wise-cracker, William Haines. Rumor has it Show People was loosely based on the life of Gloria Swanson, who began in Sennett comedies and rose to grand drama (And don't think she didn't spend the rest of her life reminding everyone!) with von Stroheim, Walsh and DeMille. Coincidentally, the comedy studios used in this film are the original digs Keystone had abandoned the year before (Think of who worked there!).

Colonel Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper (Dell Henderson) drives his daughter Peggy (Davies) from Georgia to Hollywood to star in the movies. These two country hicks are unsuspecting fodder for incorrigible Billy Boone (Haines), "" – a custard pie artist …"" who descends on their cafeteria table in an outrageously funny entrance (watch for the bit with the noodle), and then helps Peggy land a part in his next picture. What she thinks is high drama turns out to be screwball, but a job is a job and Billy convinces her "" . . all the stars have to take it on the chin – "". At the preview, Billy and Peggy bump into ….. Charlie Chaplin, who asks for her autograph! She pushes the little fellow aside and a horrified Billy grabs the book and makes her sign. Chaplin climbs in his car and Billy tells Peggy who shes just snubbed, so naturally, she faints. It's so very funny, considering Davies character isn't supposed to recognize this guy! Peggy soon moves on to work at the High Art Studios, changes her name to 'Patricia Pepoire' and leaves poor Billy behind. Davies does a wonderful send-up of a serious actress, with all the prerequisite fluttering eyelashes and quivering lips. Vidor throws in a parade of stars eating lunch in a long tracking shot (and they're all sitting shoulder to shoulder, facing the camera!) that includes Polly Moran (Who's also sensationally funny playing Davies' maid), Louella Parsons (one of the friendly vampires), Estelle Taylor, Claire Windsor Aileen Pringle, the comedy duo of Karl Dane (with his arm in a sling) and George K. Arthur (pretending he's stealing the silverware), Leatrice Joy (amused by Arthur's antics), Renee Adoree, Rod (eating and smoking) La Rocque, Mae Murray, John (in a robe) Gilbert (who also appears driving through the MGM gates early in the picture), Norma (eeeww!) Talmadge (looking bitchy and aloof as usual) and Patricia dressed like Marie Antoinette, sandwiched between Douglas Fairbanks (as he does an amusing trick) and William S. Hart (protecting her from Doug). Billy runs into the High Art crew on location when the comedy troupe disrupts their filming, with predictably nutty results. Vidor even works himself into the final scene as the director of Peggy's current production. Also worth noting are Harry Gribbon as the comedy director doing a great caricature of Eddie Sedgwick, Sidney Bracy as the dramatic director who can't get Peggy to cry for her screen test and then can't stop her once she does, and Paul Ralli as Andre, her dramatic love interest and a hilarious phony. When her character tries to 'act' its as though Davies is poking fun at all the awful dramas she'd been forced into and she's brilliant doing it.

While it's true Show People is a hokey satire of the 'good ole days' ten years hence, it remains a highly entertaining example of quality work from MGM, Irving Thalberg, and their tremendous wealth of assembled talent. What a shame so much has been lost. There are also far too many examples of great films like The Patsy (1928), Vidor and Davies' hugely successful comedy from earlier that same year, languishing in vaults when they could be seen and enjoyed.",Positive "This is a fine drama and a nice change of pace from today's more hectic and loud films. It is another solid based-on-a-true store, which still means much of it could be made up for dramatic purposes. Frankly, I don't know but I liked the story.

The story is about a young man back in the Fifties who gets interested in rocketry and wants to enter that field instead of working in the coal mines as everyone else, including his father, does in this West Virginia town. The big problem is the conflict it causes between the boy and his father, which I think was overdone. I would like to have a little less tension between the two.

The young man, still a boy, is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, one of his first staring assignments, I think. He's likable, as are his school buddies in here. It's nice to see nice kids in a modern-day film. The two other key actors in the movie are Chris Cooper (the dad) and Laura Dern (the kid's teacher who encourages him all the time.)

The cinematography is decent the 1950s soundtrack is fun to hear. Once again: I wish there more of these kind of films made today.",Positive "Eleven different Film Makers from different parts of the world are assembled in this film to present their views and ideas about the WTC attack. This is one of the best effort you will see in any Film. Films like this are rarely made and appreciated. This film tries to touch every possible core of WTC. Here are some of the most important stories from the film that makes this film so unique.

There is the story from Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) where somewhere in Iran people are preparing for the attacks from America. There a teacher is trying to educate her students by informing them about Innocent People being killed in WTC massacre. Then comes a story from Youssef Chahine (Egypt) where a Film Maker comes across face-to-face conversation with a Dead Soldier in the WTC attack and a Dead Hard Core Terrorist who was involved in WTC attack. Then we see a story from Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) where a group of Five Innocent children's sees Osama Bin Laden and plans to kidnap him and win the reward money from America. Then we see the story from Alejandro Gozalez Inarritu (Mexico) where you see a Black Screen and slowly you see the real footage of WTC buildings coming down. And the people who are stuck in the building are jumping out of it to save their lives. The other most important story is from Mira Nair (India) where a mother is struggling to get respect for her Dead Son whose name is falsely trapped in WTC massacre! After September 11 attack, Our heart beat automatically starts pumping if we hear two names anywhere in the world.. First is World Trade Centre and the second is Osama! This film totally changes our perception and makes a strong point by claiming something more to it.

I will definitely recommend this movie to everyone who loves to have such kinds of Home DVD Collection. Definitely worth every penny you spend. But please don't expect anything more apart from Films in this DVD. There is of course Filmographies of the Film Makers but No Extra Features.",Positive "This movie is by far the cutest I have seen in a long time! Wonderful animation and adorable characters (even the bad guys were cute!) made this one a total winner in my book, and also in the books of those I saw it with. I still want to see it again, but haven't had time. Better than Toy Story, which was good too, but not THIS good .",Positive "The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.",Negative "Fassbinder's most lavish production sacrifices little of his talent for identifying and deconstructing a locus of suffering in long, mobile takes that somehow also act as social encapsulations; here, it's much more overt, since the story takes place in war-torn Germany at the end of WWII, and the central character is a woman (Hanna Schygulla as Maria) who capitalizes on vulnerabilities (both economic and gender-related) to catapult herself up the ladder of a prominent textile corp. that makes coveted goods like lederhosen available to indigent workers (as she once was). Married amidst allied air raids, Maria and her new husband Herrmann are allowed a brief honeymoon before he's shipped out to the Russian front. In his absence, her despair is great: she spends most days at the train station, waiting for him to return. When he is reported dead, she abruptly stops grieving and takes a job as a barmaid/prostitute at a brothel catering to American GI's.

When he returns, things get plenty messy, as circumstances (and his sense of noble self-sacrifice) conspire to keep them apart. The message is Fassbinder's M.O. writ large: 'Love is colder than death,' but not only is Maria contending with her own sanity and a husband largely incapable of loving her, but a country in deep flux with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. Fassbinder is making some kind of statement on post-war Germany selling out to the highest bidder, but as with all his films, I tend to block those elements out and focus on the unbearable passions on display: Fassbinder's as evoked through his characters; his actors' as filtered through their real-life connections with Fassbinder. Taken together, his films can be either unbearable or indescribably mesmeric, often at once; this falls somewhere in-between, although definitely closer to the latter. While I didn't like it quite as much as The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Katzelmacher, Maria Braun certainly has a greater scope and what's more, I could feel its passion and authentic detail to human emotions.",Positive "An interesting TV movie based on true fact, betrayed by the description of one of the leading characters, that of a prisoner. Giovanni Ribisi plays his younger brother, who has the delicate mission of deciding if he will appeal to the courts for his brother's death penalty. But when he goes to visit him and enters Elias Koteas, the problem starts. It has nothing to do with Koteas' acting ability. He just looks like the version of a prisoner of proletarian roots according to ""G.Q."" magazine, with a language too sophisticated for someone who has spent most of his life behind bars. This realization came to me after meeting again an old friend, whom I had not seen for almost 15 years, which he spent in several Panamanian jails. The young man I used to know is gone, not only because he is older, but due to his exposure for a prolonged time to the penal system. There are jails and there are jails, one must say, but this one prisoner in ""Shot In the Heart"" is definitely out of this world.",Positive "Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was funny and sad and yes, the guy Andie MacDowell shagged was hot. Interesting, realistic characters and plots as well as beautiful scenery. I think my Mum would like it. I still think they should have been allowed to call it the Sad F**kers Club though...",Positive "Much to your presumable happiness fair readers, Cage and Hopper did meet and fortunately not in a Lynch movie—because RED ROCK WEST is way better than any Lynch movie …. Nicolas Cage is a third—rate actor, the porcelain babe is a surrogate femme fatal, only daddy Hopper is as mean as ever …. RED ROCK WEST is, despite the trite cast, one of my favorite American thrillers; in a word, a thriller with some twists.

One notices mainly the gusto, the awesome pace, the thrills, the nice suspense, Lara Flynn Boyle's cute tight small ass, Cage's enviable physical shape (though undeniably ugly, with sharp, bird features, thick eyebrows and thin, rare hair, Cage displayed a fine overall shape …), Hopper's consummate routine, some moderately but truly funny moments, Cage's play with his intended persona, Hopper's rigid, psychopathic allure, Lara's meanness, Cage seems a roamer, the archetypal gloomy roamer of the noir cinema, hungry, tough if needed, naive, dirty, tired. Lara Flynn Boyle performs as the cold mean seductress, Walsh as her heartless husband, and Hopper as the Lynchian hit-man he's already done before.

Cage looks indeed rather groggy or dizzy or very confused and having a severe hangover. But this might be his regular look.",Positive "You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the ""thirty seconds"" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.

If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for ""From the Earth to the Moon"" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.",Negative "Run away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.

No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.

Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting.",Negative "I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create ""nothing"", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.",Positive "For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.",Negative "Stephane Rideau was already a star for his tour de force in ""Wild Reeds,"" and he is one of France's biggest indie stars. In this film, he plays Cedric, a local boy who meets vacationing Mathieu (newcomer Jamie Elkaim, in a stunning, nuanced, ethereal performance) at the beach. Mathieu has a complex relationship with his ill mother, demanding aunt and sister (with whom he has a competitive relationship). Soon, the two are falling in love.

The film's fractured narrative -- which is comprised of lengthy flash-backs, bits and pieces of the present, and real-time forward-movement into the future -- is a little daunting. Director Sebastien Lifshitz doesn't signal which time-period we are in, and the story line can be difficult to follow. But stick it out: The film's final 45 minutes are so engrossing that you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. By turns heart-breaking and uplifting, this film ranks with ""Beautiful Thing"" as must-see cinema.",Positive "What an inspiring movie, I laughed, cried and felt love. For a true story,it does give you hope and that miracles do happen. It has a great cast. Ellen Burstyn, Samantha Mathis, Jodelle Ferland(she's 4 or 5yrs. old) what a actress. Its on Showtime. A Must See Movie!! :)=",Positive "Man, was I disappointed.

1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends'

2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.

3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.

4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.

5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying ""Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!"" This was a bad attempt at making another ""Love At First Bite"".

I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.",Negative "This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business.",Negative "I agree with everyone who says that this series was the best of the 'spy' genre. My husband and I were captivated by it when it first aired in the US and watched every episode. I tried at that time to purchase the series (I did tape all of it) but was told by WGBH that it was not available. I even considered writing to Ian Holm to see if he might have a copy! Like others, I purchased and read the Deighton series (in part to understand the complicated plot.) If the original version ever comes available on DVD, I'll be among the first in line to snap up a copy. Ian Holm's portrayal of the vulnerable but courageous Bernard Samson was amazing. (He is always amazing.)",Positive "What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? ""The Sopranos"" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.",Positive "I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.",Negative "Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a ""Creative Consultant."" The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!",Positive "This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.

For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.

I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.

Avoid.",Negative "Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the""High Fat Diet"" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary.....",Positive "In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious… There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so far…the fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.",Negative "It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.",Negative "WOW. If you think that a film can't fatigue in some way, then you haven't seen Dog Bite Dog. This film pulls no punches, and it doesn't shy away from showing very disturbing images at all. Much like Salo, this one shows us the dehumanization of the human spirit. It is gritty, dark, depressing and hopeless, but it is also one of the best films to ever come out of Hong Kong.

The script is much more of the same, but don't go on thinking it is incredibly clichéd. It basically is about a troubling and obsessive detective in a cat and mouse game, against a professional and emotionless hit-man. While the script offers nothing new on the surface, it does provide a lot of questions about the dark side of humanity. Is violence really that necessary? Do we become more or less human when we abuse a 5 year old child, without pity, without remorse? In turn, we humans act no less than rabid dogs when we are blinded by anger, this is a sad truth. It is a topic that the director brilliantly explores, without limiting himself at all. Besides the cat and mouse chase, the script also develops two separate story lines for the main characters. One is about love, and the other is about redemption. Even if the script isn't that new, it is still wonderfully written and it keeps you glued to the seat at all times.

The acting is really, really good. Edison Chen as the Hit-man is incredible; he proves that he isn't just any pretty face. He is ruthless, vile and beyond likable. Sam Lee as the obsessed cop is also outstanding. The supporting cast, in short, is excellent. The music is also worth mentioning. Very somber score by Ben Cheung, with some effective light hearted songs played at key dark moments in the film. The cinematography by Yuen Man is also really good.

Overall, this CATIII film is highly recommended. Very well paced, incredibly acted, marvelously scored and just really good at the end of it all. However, as many have pointed out, this is not a movie for everyone. If you dislike strong violence then you should stay away from this one. If you don't like seeing heavy negativity in film then this isn't for you too. In the end, a powerhouse film, 8/10.",Positive "The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even ""the Flintstones"" or ""Kukla, Fran and Ollie"" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this!",Negative "There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.",Positive "This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; ""Go into your loft and you may find this.."" or ""Go into your back garden tonight and..."" - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a ""loft"", and a ""back garden"" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and ""why don't you"" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on ""Mama and Papa's"" money... you make me sick",Negative "My wife and I rented this movie because some people had drawn parallels between it and ""Office Space"". Blockbuster and IMDB even had it as an ""also recommended"" selection if you liked ""Office Space"".

Now, I've seen Office Space probably 15 or 20 times. I love it. It's probably one of my 10 favorite movies. Witty, humorous, and featuring characters that remind me of people I've worked with over the years. ""Haiku Tunnel"" is similar to ""office Space"" in that they are both films. That's where the similarity ends. We sat through probably the first 50 minutes of HT, giving it the benefit of the doubt, hoping, nay, *praying* that it would get better. It didn't. We couldn't take it any more, and stopped the tape. Thank GOD it was a free rental. I'd have been p***ed if we'd actually paid for it. We should be reimbursed for having to sit through it. Now, since we didn't see the end, perhaps it miraculously comes together and redeems itself. I doubt it.

Haiku Tunnel is so bad it's hard to believe it ever got produced. The movie is SO unfunny it's painful. Just mail the friggin letters already!!! The premise is asinine. The jokes are awful. We got as far as the ""printer doesn't work"" scene and had to stop. We couldn't take it anymore. This film is an EMBARRASMENT for Josh Kornbluth.

If you are a fan of Office Space......don't waste your time with this turd. 0/10",Negative "Men of Honor has many great aspects to it. Good action sequences, plenty of ""feel good"" scenes, a good musical score, but the part that really makes the movie is the great acting. Mostly by Robert Deniro. The story of Men of Honor is focused about Carl Brashear played by Cuba Gooding Jr. who wants to be the first African American deep sea diver in the navy. It chronicles his rough struggle from being a poor farmer to getting into diving school and even further. It is a good story, but it seems like it has been done many times before. A person, against all of the odds, won't give up until they accomplish their goals that they set for some sentimental reason many years ago. It could happen, but a lot of the struggles the Brashear faces in the movie are questionable including the C.O. of the diving school tampering with his final test. However, all of that is made up for the scene when Robert Deniro finally enters the movie. Deniro plays Mater Chief Sunday who is the teacher at the diving school Brashear is attending. As soon as Deniro come in he omits this vibe of extreme arrogance that you can't hate unless you have incredible wilpower. Before the movie ends, Deniro gives off multiple speeches that would have you laughing at how cool he is but you are too stunned at the way he punches them out. In the end you must doubt some of the aspects of the film, but admit it, if it was all the truth, it would have you snoozing it your seat by the first twenty minutes.",Positive "I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was ""he deserves it, for making such a bad movie"". Don't waste your time or money on this one.",Negative Hi folks

Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.

The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.

Just a waste of time thinks ...

JAKE Scorpio,Negative "Any story comprises a premise, characters and conflict. Characters plotting their own play promises triumph, and a militant character readily lends oneself to this. Ardh Satya's premise is summarized by the poem of the same name scripted by Dilip Chitre. The line goes - ""ek palde mein napunsaktha, doosre palde mein paurush, aur teek tarazu ke kaante par, ardh satya ?"". A rough translation - ""The delicate balance of right & wrong ( commonly seen on the busts of blind justice in the courts ) has powerlessness on one plate and prowess on another. Is the needle on the center a half-truth ? ""

The poem is recited midway in the film by Smita Patil to Om Puri at a resturant. It makes a deep impact on the protagonist & lays the foundation for much of the later events that follow. At the end of the film, Om Puri ends up in exactly the same situation described so aptly in the poem.

The film tries mighty hard to do a one-up on the poem. However, Chitre's words are too powerful, and at best, the film matches up to the poem in every aspect.

",Positive "The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.",Negative "I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting ""The Whole Nine Yards""--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.

I remembered that the trailer for ""Whipped"" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.

In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?

[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]

The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!

The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. (""Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and..."")

What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.

Rating: 3",Negative "Well, what can it be said about this disaster? I watched it because it aired on cable. I regret for wasting my time but at least I didn't waste money.

The creature is the cheesiest you can get! Please, you need to be very generous not to get angered by the CHEAP Halloween costume. Oh well, there are also displays of horrible acting, f/x, and dialogues. The confrontation with the creature is unbelievable, you can't get a more pathetic scene.

This is the worst you can get from direct to video flicks. ""Creature Unknown"" makes FULL MOON PICTURES movies look like ""Halloween"".

Avoid this one at all costs, please. The only ""positive"" thing about this trash are the sexy women.",Negative "This was disappointing. It started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar, it fell flat. Maria Schrader's acting is dreadful, never seeming to mean what she says, or even knowing what she says until she says it. She showed no genuine emotion at all, not for her beloved goy, or her mother's story. When with Lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in Lena's story. There never seemed to be a real relationship between Lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding, which isn't much. The supposed parallel between Hannah's ""mixed"" romance and her mother's relationship with her father was as cliché as they come, and failed miserably anyway. The wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. The climax of the protest was uninspiring, and no matter what Lena had or had not done to influence the outcome, she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time, a haunted look, an inexplicable ambivalence. In fact, none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. It was very hard to care about any of them, even little Ruth. Everything with Luis was a distraction. (Why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel? There was no context or explanation whatever for that.) If every reference to him was removed it wouldn't be noticed.

A simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother, again??) weak acting, and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. You could almost hear ""quiet on the set!...."" I started thinking this was worthy of a 7, but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4, then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. This was about as cold and sterile a movie as I have seen. A terrible waste of a good story.",Negative "Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.",Negative "Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.

Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!",Negative "I tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse.

The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.

Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant.

Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?",Negative "I admit I have a weakness for alternate history stories, from ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE to GROUNDHOG DAY to 12:01. Among those greats is this little gem. It's pretty difficult to get through MR. DESTINY without giving a nod of appreciation to each and every cast member, from the goodhearted James Belushi to the murderous Courtney Cox. This movie lacks the gravitas and scale to make it a great film, but it's a fine cheer-up on a rainy afternoon. It's also a great rental for an inexpensive date.",Positive "First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...

2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory

2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck

I should have followed my first instinct and turned off ""Hot Rod"" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.

This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.

I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.",Negative "A lot of talk has been made about ""psychological Westerns"", but this is one of the very few that is truly in that genre. It has big name stars who perform very well, but it is the director who makes this such a good movie. Stewart Granger loses his British safari hunter stereotype to play a haggard retired buffalo hunter who is revered in the West as one of the best. Robert Taylor plays the upstart (in contrast to the usual young upstart, Taylor's character is middle aged, too), who wants to slaughter buffalo, and lures Granger into business with him. They hire two other big name actors, Lloyd Nolan and Russ Tamblyn, into being their skinners. Granger is haunted by the buffalo he has killed, knowing that he may be to blame if they become extinct, knowing if they become extinct, the Native American way of life will greatly suffer. Taylor soon reveals a sadistic side, but it is a realistic saidism, unlike the one dimensional sadists of modern film, created by nerds and dorks. He is insecure, and needs human companionship. Still, he won't stop at murder. The end pits the two against each other, with a startling conclusion. The psychological effects of what they're doing are well depicted.",Positive "Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.

Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).

Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.

Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).

Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.

With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.

The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general.",Positive "Only children below the age of 12 should be allowed to see this film. The rest of us should take a book, MP3 player, or just take a nice nap to endure the experience of this event. This can be best summed up as a ""blown-up"" TV movie being distributed into theaters. Children will want to see this film, and they will like and be amused by the movie.",Negative "Fast paced and funny satire about that original ""reality TV"", the soap opera. The script by playwright Robert Harling is packed with one liners and ridiculous situations. The best of them is the climax, a live broadcast that quickly deteriorates into bad improv and a brain transplant. Keven Kline's murdering of his lines, due to not wearing his glasses, is hilarious. ""Her brain will laterally explore within the next few houses."" The brilliant cast is on the same page as Kline. Sally Field, Elizabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, Garry Marshall, and Kathy Najimy are all perfect. It is a treat to see a cast click like it does in this movie. This is a classic that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

P.S. The score by Alan Silvestri is an added bonus. It fits the soap opera with it's flamboyant and melodramatic air.",Positive "A well put together entry in the serial killer genre that unfortunately gets mired down in its own pretentiousness to be really satisfying. Willem Dafoe is superb as a NYC detective trying to track down what appears to be a copycat using the same Renaissance art-related killing techniques used in a series of murders he solved years earlier. Scott Speedman is Dafoe's junior partner and they have pretty good chemistry (at least for a while). Other characters pop up to conveniently tie the two cases together. Clea Duval is the friend of an earlier victim and Peter Stormare is some sort of art broker/mentor to Dafoe...that's a bit hard to take, although Stormare is, of course, never dull. The film's ending is particularly disappointing. Look fast for Deborah Harry as Dafoe's less than forthcoming neighbor.",Negative "Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.

The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of ""point of hear"" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.

The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002.",Positive "After Harry Reems' teenage girlfriend is raped by Zebbedy Colt (The Night-Walker), Reems becomes despondent and consoles himself by having sex with some lesbians. Meanwhile, Colt, who carries a cane and dresses like a magician, rapes some more women. Eventually, Reems decides to track him down and end his crime spree. Despite being shot on film and marginally nasty, it looks like any other 70's porno and is ineptly executed. The rape/abuse scenes are surprisingly restrained and the attempt to cash in on ""Death Wish"" is laughable. R. Bolla (""Cannibal Holocaust"") plays a cop. Colt, who is usually over-the-top, wigs out in a couple of scenes, but he's too well behaved for my money. This roughie could have been much rougher.",Negative """White Noise"" had potential to be one of the most talked about movies since ""The Exorcist"" I think. Seeing as EVP is supposedly true it really had an easy passage to be a feared true fact. Not many movies come along that really instill fear into the minds of people. Like I said this movie could have, but did not. The movie degraded itself to a low class PG-13 scary movie. Nothing compared to ""The Ring"" or ""The Sixth Sense"" by any means. Someone really needs to just take charge in the horror movie industry and just make a movie that not only makes us think, but it makes us jump, scream, everything a horror movie should do. I'm honestly sick of the PG-13 Horror Genre, because its becoming a genre of its own. We need the old days back, the blood and gore days, the Freddy Kruger, the Jason, The Mike Myers days. Few movies can pull off a think about this mentality being so NOT scary. So why try to pull it off? A few good jumps in this movie amount to nothing but one of the stupidest endings in movie history with no resolution at all...don't waste your money on this movie.",Negative "It is an excellent thriller from Turkey which can make sense.Great job from Gokbakar brothers.

First of all,i want to point on screen play.Generally screen play in most films from Turkey is not enough,but GEN has the best shots to be said ""perfect"".And also transition parts are really excellent.

On the other hand,""Gen"" has a great topic that influence everyone.Especially,a woman ,who wants to be a psyciatrist in a sanitarium ,has a mother that is a habitual insanity.Principal causes and psychological consequences are given in Gen.The only thing you have to do is to combine all the hints.

There is an impressive aggression part Doga Rutkay and Sahan Gokbakar played.This performance may be more realistic than "" Irréversible(Monica Bellucci) "".

The last thing i want to say is ""Watch this movie,you'll get confused""",Positive "I really enjoyed the reunion a lot! I would have rated it a 10 if they had had ""Hassie"" and ""Little Luke"". There wasn't even a mention of where they are today or why they didn't participate in the reunion. They were very popular characters and I think it was a mistake not to give an explanation about their lack of appearance.

Anyway, I was glad that TNN ran the series again! I had been looking for episodes for years and what a joy to be able to tape the whole series (I may have missed a few episodes). Jenny Hanahan",Positive "The Power of Kangwon Province is director Hong Sang-Soo's second feature effort and clearly much of what he started with in his previous film returns in this film, including the multiple connected narratives (in this case, two), and stories of troubled or troubling relationships, as well as a potent dosage of irony.

One thing that's clearly reduced from his previous work is the flights of fancy that included elements of surrealism. However, this film also contains a single moment of surreal that strikes a contrast against the otherwise rather realistic depiction found therein. The two stories follow a young woman who goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with her friends, only to find herself drawn to a stranger, the second about a man who also goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with his friend and struggles with his relationship woes.

Again, Hong shows a strong understanding of irony and of the flaws in human nature and yet I don't think he's entirely unsympathetic when it comes to his characters, drawing in just enough compassion to offset the criticism he draws with his irony. I think the think I've come to love about Hong's films is that they just feel so real, especially the complex and conflicted characters. Not to say that every person is a hypocrite or suffering from confused feelings, but rather, that these characters he and the actors present, feel fully developed and believable.

This is not a fast moving film. There's a lot of lingering and like the previous film, things don't always connect immediately so patience does pay off and in surprising ways. There doesn't appear to be any element of the film that isn't intentionally placed in the film and it's made my a little hyper-aware of various seemingly extra characters as they get dragged into the mix as the film progresses.

Power is an excellent film that manages to inject a level of personal emotion, regret, longing into a story that highlights irony and the fallibility of human decision-making. It's a rather hard balance to keep and it's surprising how Hong manages to pull it off twice in a row. Technical production values have gotten much better since the first film and direction has gotten steady and clear. This film doesn't pack the same emotional wallop that the first does, but gains a lot in its assured exploration and the refinement really helps tighten the overall vision. Great viewing for art cinema lovers. 8/10.",Positive "This movie features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.

Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply ""don't get it"". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I ""got it"". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's ""I Went Down"" and Guy Ritchie's ""Snatch"" and ""Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.

I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.",Negative "This is by far one of my favorite of the American Pie Spin offs mainly because in most of the others the main character (one of the young Stiflers) always seems unrealistic in nature.

For example AP: The Naked Mile. You have a teenage guy surrounded by naked college chicks , and has one in particular hot on his trail to rid him of his virginity ""problem"" and he ends up stopping mid-deed and rides a horse back to sleep with his girlfriend, who keep in mind gave him a ""guilt free pass"" for the weekend. I can appreciate the romantic aspect of the whole thing but let's be realistic; most people who are watching these movies aren't particularly searching for a romantic story.

Whereas the most recent installment finally seems to realize who the audience is and good old Erik Stifler seems to wake up and smell the roses and as always Mr. Levenstein lends his ""perfectly natural"" eyebrow humor to the equation and scored a touchdown with this new movie.",Positive "I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.

Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade.",Negative "I will begin by saying I am very pleased with this climax of the Bourne trilogy. Please, oh please don't ruin it by doing a sequel years from now or a prequel. Just leave it alone. Right..moving on.As talented and versatile as Matt Damon is...it seems as though he was just meant to play Jason Bourne.

If you are a fan of the first two Bourne movies, you will not be disappointed by the third installment. It sticks to what works and adds a little more. I was very pleased to see how well all the information we obtain in 'Identity' and 'Supremacy' all mesh in 'Ultimatum' to finally paint the full picture of Jason Bourne's troubled past. The action sequences are fast paced and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The fights between Bourne and the assassins are always fun to watch. I have always been a fan of movies surrounding CIA agents and how the CIA gather their Intel and this movie is right up that street, making it even more exciting for me.

If you choose to watch The Bourne Ultimatum without watching the previous 2 installments..you will still thoroughly enjoy the movie but I would still recommend you watch them first. This would allow you to fully understand the character Jason Bourne and become attached and be a part of his world. This allows you to appreciate and enjoy the movie even more. I'm not sure which is the better of the first 2 but I personally think 'Ultimatum' might, just MIGHT, have the edge when comparing the trilogy.",Positive "This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.",Negative "This, despite not being the original - it began life as a play in Central Europe - has weathered the several incarnations that followed (MGM's own remake with period songs In The Good Old Summertime, the Broadway show She Loves Me, even the excellent theatre revival in Paris a couple of years ago) and remains the definitive version and the one they all have to beat. Several previous commenters have identified the contributing factors that make it so successful and memorable not least being the prevailing fashion in 30s and 40s Hollywood for lavishing attention and detail on ensemble playing rather than just two leads as so often happens today - try, for example, removing Ugarte, Ferrari, Renault etc from Casablanca and yes you'd still have Rick and Ilsa and Viktor Lazslo but they'd just be frosting without the rich cake mixture below. Jimmy Stewart and Maggie Sullavan WERE both ideal and irreplaceable leads but how much brighter they shine when their performances are reflected in those of Frank Morgan, Felix Bressart, Joseph Schildkraut and Andy Hardy's Sara Haden and this is BEFORE we factor in that Lubitsch 'touch'. Okay, maybe they WERE a tad more naive, innocent even, in that Jurassic Age but how many genuine film lovers, sated with scatology, screwing and in-your-face sex, turn back to those days of Stories, Style, Slickness and Skill and wallow in great movies like this one. By far the best thing about this technological age is not CSI but DVD that can at one and the same time make these classics available to nostalgics and show the Matrix freaks how the big boys used to do it.",Positive "Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say ""Norm!!""? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.",Negative "Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.

History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.

But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.

Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.

England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.

After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.

The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.

Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.

During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup.",Positive "This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.",Negative "Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...

If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime!",Negative "This movie is one of the most awful I've ever seen. Not only is the dialogue awful, it never ends. You'll think it's ending, but it's not. How long is it, 140, 160 minutes? I don't even know. I do know that I'll never watch it again. It's like someone took a romantic comedy, took out the comedy, then decided to downplay the romance, leaving us with the pile of crap that managed to make its way to the screen. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself how terrible this film is.",Negative "I thought How The Grinch Stole Christmas was a pretty good movie.It wasn't horrible, nor was it great, but it was enjoyable to watch.I felt as if Jim Carrey got a little annoying at times.They made the Grinch seem like a special education person, when all he needed to be was evil and devious, but yet he turned out kind of retarded.I did think the scenery, when not inside the Grinch's cave, was beautiful, and there was a few parts where I laughed, but most of the time I thought it was just annoying.This movie could've been ""SO"" much better if they had changed the Grinch's personality, and they had included some more laugh scenes, because most of the humor wasn't funny.I liked How The Grinch Stole Christmas anyway, but it's not anything to get excited about seeing.",Positive "I LOVED this flick when it came out in the 80's and still do! I still quote classic lines like ""say it again"" and ""you said you'd rip my balls off sir"". Ron Leibman was hot and very funny! Although it was underrated and disowned by MAD, I have to say that this little gem will always be a treasure of mine and a movie that I would take with me if sent to a deserted island! I only wish that someone would release the DVD because my VHS tape is about worn out! If you like cheesed out comedy, this is definitely for you and should be considered a cult classic! It is military humor at it's best and worse! Rent it if you can't own it!",Positive "I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects.",Positive "The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.",Negative "Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.",Negative "As so many others have written, this is a wonderful documentary. Here is a list of the 'chapters' for anyone interested: 1: A New Germany: 1933-1939 2: Distant War, September 1939-May 1940 3: France Falls, May-June 1940 4: Alone, May 1940-May 1941 5: Barbarossa, June-December 1941 6: Banzai, Japan, 1931-1942 7: On Our Way, USA, 1939-1942 8: Desert North Africa, 1940-1943 9: Stalingrad, June 1942-February 1943 10: Wolfpack 11: Red Star The Soviet Union, 1941-1943 12: Whirlwind Bombing Germany, September 1939 13: Tough Old Gut 14: Its A Lovely Day, Tomorrow: Burma, 15: Home Fires: Britain 1940-1941 16: Inside The Reich: Germany, 1940-1944 17: Morning: June - August 1944 18: Occupation Holland, 1940-1944 19: Pincers: August 1944- March 1945 20: Genocide: 1941-1945 21: Nemesis, Germany: February-May 1945 22: Japan: 1941-1945 23: Pacific: February 1942-July 1945 24: The Bomb: February-September 1945 25: Reckoning",Positive "When I first heard about the title, I thought of 'The Simpsons', just like so many other reviewers, but when I saw the cast, I was completely stunned, that so many great character-actors would actually be in this! First of all, we have Christopher Walken (Deer Hunter, Pulp Fiction), who plays the title character, McBain. He is rescued from a Vietnam POW-camp by some of his buddies, one of which is Santos (Chick Vennera, Yanks), who splits a HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL with McBain (Vietnam soldiers are loaded with cash apparently), and tells him that he can re-do the favor to him, if he ever gets into trouble.

Then, 18 years later, Santos and his sister Christina (Maria Conchita Alonso, The Running Man, Predator 2) join the rebels in Colombia trying to get rid of their evil dictator, El Presidente (Victor Argo, Taxi Driver, King of New York), and when Santos fails the mission, Christina goes to McBain for help.

McBain then asks his good ol' Vietnam buddies to help him. First there's the token tough black guy, Eastland, played by ""American Ninja""'s Steve James, who was also in director James Glickenhaus' previous movie, ""The Exterminator"", where the exterminator's real name also was Eastland, coincidence? I think not. There is also a lot of other references to The Exterminator, among other things, the most notable one being that McBain himself wears a welders-mask when Christina sees him for the first time, when he is working on a welding-job on top of a bridge!

The other guys in the Vietnam-pack are: The rich guy who can afford all sorts of equipment for the team, Frank Bruce (Michael Ironside, Total Recall, Starship Troopers), and then there's the doc, Dalton, (played by Jay Patterson, who doesn't look like the guy the IMDb is linking to, and I haven't seen him in other movies, so who knows), and last but not least, there's the cop, Gill, who has had enough of his unsatisfying job, he's played by Thomas G. Waites, who some of us might remember from The Warriors and The Thing.

And in other big roles, we find Luis Guzmán (Boogie Nights, Carlito's Way), as a small-time drug-dealer who can't get a decent job. Also, there is Dick Boccelli as the drug-dealing kingpin who gets hung up in a crane on top of a roof by the McBain-gang, almost Exactly in the same way he got hung up over a meat-grinder by John Eastland in the EXTERMINATOR-movie! Now, I haven't seen Glickenhaus' ""Shakedown/Blue Jean Cop"" yet, but I'm almost ready to bet half a hundred-dollar bill that Boccelli gets hung up in that movie too!

Well, back to the plot of this movie.. they go off to Colombia and saves the day, yay! But who cares about the plot anyway, the cast is great, and the action-scenes are very well done, and you're never bored while watching this movie! Highly recommended to all action-lovers!",Positive "Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991

Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.

OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I""m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon?

Thanks...is this enough, finally?

This movie is worthless.",Negative There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.

The plot is bad and irrational.

What more can I say. The movie sucks.,Negative "`Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.

I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary – and inferior – but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. – knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....

It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.

",Positive "I'll start by relating my first encounter with Prince's music. It was in a bar, on my 39th birthday and a girl was dancing bare breasted to ""1999"" playing on the speakers. I asked people, who is this singer? I was told it was Prince. It was so good that it distracted me from a beautiful, topless dancer. Later I started hearing other Prince songs and really ""digging"" them. When Purple Rain came out I still knew very little about this fellow Minnesotan. The movie blew me away. I instantly became Prince's No. 1 fan of the ""War Baby"" generation. Later I found out one of my cousins was his secretary, and she got me, and my nephew into a V.I.P. Prince concert where we sat next to his mother...how cool is that! Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree with Siskel & Ebert who called Purple Rain an instant classic. I have seen it over 17 times and absolutely love it. I thought Prince's acting was fine, Apollonia struggled a bit, but all in all the acting was fine. John Gielgud was not available to play 'The Kid' so Prince took the role. The film is visually stunning, brilliantly paced (it never gets slow), and terrifically directed. I rank it among the Best Movie Musicals of all time. The last time I watched it was after about a 7 year gap and it still delivered. I am so proud of fellow Minnesotan Prince Rogers Nelson and would love to tell him personally. He walked right in front of me during the above mentioned concert and said, ""Hi"", to my nephew but not me. He was chatting with his mom. I was a bit crushed but he's still No. 1 with me.",Positive "I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), ""ho's"" and the ""hood"" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?",Positive "I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.

",Negative "The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade.",Positive "I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the ""Candy bar! Candy bar!"" scene.)",Positive "I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and

I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.

Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.

And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties.

So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened.",Positive "Chances Are uses that marvelous song by the same name throughout the film. Robert Downey, Jr. is excellent in this movie. His extra large eyes and wonderfully variable facial expressions are part of expertise in acting as different people in diverse films. Compare Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin. You will enjoy Chances Are. I did.",Positive "This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.",Negative "For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.

The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).

Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.

4 out of 10",Negative "While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.

The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.

Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.",Positive "I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.

The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.

I would have voted ""1"" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.

I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones.",Negative "Whenever I see most reviews it's called 'a misfire for Eddie Murphy'. These critics want to take a look at some of the stuff he's doing these days, and maybe soften their stance in retrospect... ""The Golden Child"" is not highbrow entertainment, but thanks to some of the cast it breaths new life into old clichés, and gives Murphy one of his best roles. I don't understand the pervading lack of 'love' for its efforts, at all. Perhaps it was released at a time when the establishment had grown weary of knockabout, thrill-a-minute adventures? Steven Spielberg started it with Indiana Jones; it's unfair to make this one a scapegoat when what is possibly its biggest sin is also utterly harmless. There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to capitalise on trends.

Yes it's silly, but even an occasional observer should be able to understand that 'ridiculous' is where Hollywood's idea of mysticism begins and ends. What's more important than believability with a story like this is that the audience have entertaining tour guides on hand to show them the mysterious sights. Michael Ritchie and Eddie Murphy fit the bill for this capacity just fine. My advice to you is to buy the ticket and take the ride.",Positive "This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.

The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.

In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:

1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation

If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.

As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.

While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.

While this will probably be better than the likes of ""The Hulk"" and ""Lara Croft II"" that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run.",Negative "Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female ""inmates"".

Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.

15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.

*1/2 out of ****",Negative "This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.",Positive "The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of ""real"" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.

Worse than the worse low budget ""B"" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.

Avoid it like the veritable plague.",Negative "This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, ""give me back my money"". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.",Negative "If you like CB4, you have no idea what you're missing if you haven't seen this film yet. This movie is crazy hilarious, and incorporates a lot more about the hip hop industry than any other parody movie... It is unfortunate that this movie has not been released on dvd because it is one movie that everybody I've ever watched it with has loved and wanted a copy. If you really want a good laugh and you like hip hop and are a little familiar with some old-school performers, definitley rent this movie. There aren't that many video rental places that have copies of it, but if you happen to come across one you will not be disappointed.",Positive "Well, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, ""Hollywood Shuffle"". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.

Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.

What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' ""young forever"" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.

Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies ""home"" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.

One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol

Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!",Negative "The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.",Negative "Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the ""worst"" movie I had seen up to that point.

Water's group of ""talent"" included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.

That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.

Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.

Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after.",Negative "I just saw ""Valentine"" and I have to say that it was the best slasher movie that I've seen in years. Unlike the recent trend of 90's horror flicks, this movie is more concerned with being eerie than it is with being self-mocking. For those out there that hated ""Scream,"" there is not one reference to ""the horror rules"" in this movie (even though the old slasher movie rules do apply here).

This is the perfect blend of 80's and 90's horror. You get the style, cinematography, and good acting of 90's films and the stalking-slasher madness of an 80's flick. I guess the year 2001 is going to finally give horror fans the kind of movies they were longing for. This is definitely a move in the right direction.

Denise Richards stands out here as a fun character. You can tell she liked her role, and that makes her stand out. I loved her in this movie.",Positive "Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...

There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.

",Negative "I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.

This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great ""dad"".

If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out.",Positive "Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10",Negative "As with most of Ben Affleck's movies, the comedy is dry and story is predictable. That is if you want to call this a story. Many points were left connected with no thought at all. I want to thank the director for not explaining the points better. I say that because, that would mean the torture would have lasted longer. As for any of Ben Affleck's failures, this one is no exception and is survivable only by the other actors. Even then, the acting for the most part was contrived and was not believable. The trip down memory lane with actors I have not seen in years was not worth the price of admission. All thought it should be told, they too are quickly joining the ranks of the ""has-been"". My choice was to wait for my car to be fixed or watch this movie. I made the wrong decision. All in all I would give it a one laugh ... mainly because that is all I got out of it.",Negative "Having no knowledge of this film prior to seeing it on Rialto Channel I found it to be a pleasant, poignant and enriching film.

The casting was excellent. I loved all the characters, they were a little exaggerated in places, (but this IS a film). The way it looked and the enjoyably giddy ride the main character took until it turned badly, as real life can and does. Yes, I thought Andy MacDowell was great. I was particularly interested to watch this film once it began because people so often joke about her acting abilities (I find this quite wierd because she's always a solid actress in my opinion).

I loved the bit at the end where Andy's character said ""sometimes I feel he was never here"" etc., it was so completely how it really is in a situation like that (which I can personally identify with), then there was that gorgeous classical piece ""Nocturne"" I think by Chopin, which was a beautiful way to end (bar the light comedy at the end, which was probably unnecessary).

I say ""well done"" to the film makers - I have seen 1,000s of worse films!",Positive "I saw this film under the title of ""Tied Up"". In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.",Negative "The movie gets to the guts of the tension between a son and a father.

The brilliant dialog, lovely scenery and great acting serve as an excellent way to present the onion that keeps peeling back layers.

The core issues of parenting, communication and manhood are explored indirectly.

In fun ways the curtain is pulled back, the masks slip off a little and truths are exposed.

All of this happens amidst a road trip format. The backdrop is rural New York state in the early fall just as the trees are changing colors. WOW!",Positive Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.,Negative "Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a ""Premiere Surprise"" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.

Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!

The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.

",Negative "I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............",Negative "The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer ""Town"" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his ""Gannex"" mac,Lindsay Anderson's ""If"" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called ""summer of love"" was followed by the ""October Revolution"" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous ""Them"" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the ""October Revolution"" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his ""State of the Country"" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of ""Stalky & Co.""written by the man whose much-maligned poem ""If"" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.",Negative """Ship Ahoy"" was probably made in order to showcase MGM talent. The film is a fun trip on an ocean liner on its way to San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the time in which the country was involved in WWII. This was typical fare for the studios, which gave the movie going public light weight entertainment as a distraction during those difficult times the country was living.

The beautiful Eleanor Powell is seen at her best in some musical numbers where she clearly shows us she was a dancer to be reckoned with. Red Skelton is also seen in a straight part with not too much clowning, as he pursues the beautiful Ms. Powell on the ship that is bringing them to Puerto Rico. The irresistible Bert Lahr has good opportunities in the film to show he was a funny man. Also Virginia Grey is seen as a fun girl who is not fooled by anyone.

There are good musical numbers featuring Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, in which one sees, among others, the amazing Buddy Rich, who has a few solos with Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Powell. A young Frank Sinatra appears also as the lead singer of the band, backed by the Pied Pipers.

This is a nostalgic trip that should be savored by fans of this genre, which MGM totally controlled.",Positive """Maléfique"" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with ""Maléfique"", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.

The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.

Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, ""Maléfique"" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.

Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.

The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.

The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about ""Maléfique"" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.

Anyways, ""Maléfique"" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10",Positive "Loved the film! This was my first glimpse at both Reese Witherspoon and Jason London, both of which are two of my favorites. Must say that no matter how many times I've seen this movie I can't help but tear up. One of those movies that should become a classic for all.",Positive "I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films.",Positive "Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!",Negative "Not having read Nabokov, and knowing nothing about chess, I could only view ""The Luzhin Defence"" as a movie.

It works really well as one of my favorite genres ""sports romances."" The chess comes alive as a tough competition much more than in, say ""Searching for Bobby Fischer,"" in showing just how much hard mental work the game can be, requiring thought, preparation, stamina and planning. I particularly liked the special effects on the chess board as alternative plays are anticipated.

Through the feminist director Maureen Gorris (of ""Antonia""), Emily Watson with her big blue eyes gradually strengthens via her transformative relationship with John Turturro's fairly one-note absent-minded intense chess genius.

The settings in Italy and Hungary are beautiful.

(originally written 5/27/2001)",Positive "I think that this movie is very neat. You eithier like Michael Jackson or you don't, but if you like him then you have to see this movie. I think that it is a very neat film with great song play and good imagination. Not to mention the film center piece Smooth Criminal which has some of the best dancing you will every see.",Positive "I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective ""advanced"" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to ""protect"" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.

Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.

Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.

Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.",Positive "Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. I think that Angelina Jolie is probably one of the most talented actress' today, but a movie like this isn't just worth her time. She deserves better, and so does everyone else in this movie. Talent is just wasted. Sorry, but i don't feel like writing a review for this.

I give it NO stars out of *****.",Positive "I can't believe John died! While filming an episode he collapsed on set! read this, (out of his biography online):John Ritter was Born In Burbank , Calafornia , On September 17th 1948.

He landed his last television role in ""8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter"" (2002), based on the popular book. On this sitcom, he played Paul Hennessey, a loving, yet rational dad, who laid down the ground rules for his three children. The show was a ratings winner in its first season and won a Peoples Choice Award for Best New Comedy and also won for Favorite Comedy Series by the Family Awards! While working ""8 Simple Rules"", he also starred in his second-to-last film, Manhood (2003)

That Same Year , While John Was Rehearsing for The 4th (3rd series) Episode of 8 Simple Rules (Now Shortened), he fell ill. Henry Winkler described it as ""John Looked Like He Had Food Poisoning"".Then He collapsed on the Set, he was quickly rushed to a Nearby Hospital, The Same Burbank Hospital Where He Was Born ,he was diagnosed with an aorta dissection, an Unrecognized Heart Flaw, he Underwent Surgery but did not make it. John Ritter Died At Age 54 , just 1 Week Away from His 55th Birthday , leaving His Wife Amy Yasbeck and 4 Children.",Positive "I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since ""Birth of a Nation"". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.",Negative "More directors like Nacho Vigalondo need a greater outlet for their talents. 7:35 De la mañana is absolute genius. What Nacho is able to convey in 8 minutes takes some Hollywood directors hours of film to achieve. I watched this smiling, but feeling a little dirty and not in the sexual way. You sit and wonder how you should feel after watching this 8 min. nugget. I was entertained, but was disturbed at the same time. Not many people can do that in just 8 minutes. It starts off simple enough. A young women comes in for breakfast at her usual place. She sits down and someone starts singing. From there, the film takes you through so many different emotions all at once it is hard to describe. It is in black & white, but this helps with the feeling the film gives you.This film makes you want to know more about the characters, how they interacted previously and how the ending impacted their lives afterward. I guess it like the old saying,""Leave them wanting more"", Nacho Vigalondo is able to do that. Watch this when you can. Show it to your friends and wonder how 8 minutes can be so much fun without taking off your clothes.",Positive "Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!!

Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.

But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!

BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!!",Positive "This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .",Positive "This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy.",Positive "First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.",Negative "This unassuming, fairly routine series deserves credit in the TV history books for two reasons: it was the first to win an Emmy award for best syndicated series, and it was the very first show to come from the fabled studios of Republic Pictures, known for its low-budget but high-powered shoot-em-ups in the 30's and 40's.

Republic was one of the first Hollywood studios to make a leap into the small screen, which was still in its infancy. But the studios' tenure as producer of TV pulp fiction would be brief. After this show, they would later dabble with the other format that they were known for, the adventure serial, with ""Commando Cody"", as well as other series, but like this one, they didn't last longer than 39 episodes. Also, Republic was in its last stages as a studio; it would finish out its tenure in Hollywood as rental stages for several Revue Studio series such as ""Soldiers of Fortune"", the original ""Dragnet"", and ""Kit Carson"", before finally shutting its doors in 1959.

Anyway, ""Stories of the Century"" wasn't that bad of an oater, its calling card was tales based on authentic figures in Western history, mainly outlaws like Black Bart, Johnny Ringo, John Wesley Hardin, The Dalton Bros. and the like. The late Jim Davis, best known for his role as the Ewing patriarch in ""Dallas"", put in an amiable job in the lead role as Matt Clark, a fictional railroad detective who has to contend with said outlaws, played by veteran and soon-to-be veteran character actors.

Two amazing facts here: The incidents would take place in different time lines, some in the 1880's, some at the turn of the century, but Clark never ages. And also, Matt has the good luck to saddle himself with two lovely female detectives as sidekicks, Frankie Adams, played by Mary Castle, and her replacement, Margaret ""Jonesy"" Jones, by Kristine Miller. The Lone Ranger could only wish for lady companionship. You can only spend such time with Tonto for so long.

""Stories Of The Century"" is a Studio City TV production from Republic Pictures Corp. 39 episodes were made during 1954, all 39 of which are in public domain and on DVD.",Positive "MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.",Negative "There's little to get excited about ""Dan in Real Life"". First off, the whole setup is incredibly contrived. Did you really believe that during that very long first meeting conversation at the restaurant, Marie wouldn't have told Dan where she was going? And since Dan did all the talking during that conversation, why would she be so attracted to him? For that matter, I never figured out why Marie was so attracted to Dan throughout the movie. He's very narcissistic and does little to convince us that he's truly a good guy (for example he lies to Marie in the bookstore, ridicules his brother about his past girlfriends and tries to make Marie jealous with a 'blind date'). There's more contrivance such as that ridiculous scene at the bowling alley where Dan and Marie are caught making out by the whole family. Yeah like that could really happen. Dan in Real life is slow-paced, sappy and manipulative. Even chick flicks like The Jane Austen Book Club get higher marks than this predictable ""tearjerker"".",Negative "Edward Burtynsky is a Canadian photographer who makes art out of the least ""artful"" objects imaginable. Everyday items such as crates, boxes, metal containers, etc. - items which most of us perceive as utilitarian at best and dismiss as being utterly without aesthetic merit - are instead converted into glorious objects d'art by Burtynsky's camera. He achieves this result by focusing on the recurring colors and geometric patterns that are apparently ever present in the industrialized world - for those perceptive enough to spot them, that is. Even heaps of compacted trash can become objects of beauty when seen through Burtynsky's lens (but didn't we already know that from ""Wall-E""?). He is particularly interested in photographing areas like mines and shipyards where Man has already made incursions into nature - which may explain why at times even the people in his pictures (i.e. the workers in those places), with their uniform clothing and robotic movements, become part of the industrial landscape.

""Manufactured Landscapes,"" a documentary about Burtynsky's work, has much of the feel of a ""Koyaanisqatsi"" about it as it dazzles us with its richly variegated kaleidoscope of images and patterns. Indeed, director Jennifer Baichwal and cinematographer Peter Mettler capture the essence of the original photos in purely cinematic terms, as their own camera records Burtynsky and his assistant running photo shoots at a factory in China, a dockyard in Bangladesh, and the construction site at the massive Three Rivers Gorge Dam project in China. With their fluid camera-work, the filmmakers match point-for-point the beauty of Burtynsky's images. In fact, the movie opens with a stunning eight-minute-long tracking shot of a Chinese factory in which hundreds of similarly dressed workers toil away in perfectly symmetrical and color-coordinated rows.

The movie does less well when Burtynsky gets around to articulating the ""themes"" of his work, which, quite frankly, come out sounding confused, contradictory and decidedly half-baked at best. But it is as a purely aesthetic experience, highlighting image and form, that ""Manufactured Landscapes"" resonates most. In the case of Burtynsky, perhaps, a picture really IS worth a thousand words.",Positive "Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if ""stoners"" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a ""monster"" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad!",Negative "First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.",Negative "The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece.",Positive "This anime series starts out great: Interesting story, exciting events, interesting characters, beautifully rendered and executed. Not everything is explained right away, dangling a proverbial carrot before the viewer, enticing the viewer to watch each succeeding episode. But imagine the disappointment to find that the sci-fi thriller/giant robot adventure is only a backdrop for psycho-babble and quasi-religious preachy exploitation. If you want to hear ""You're OK. It's good to be you."" after being embattled with negative slogans and the characters' negative emotions, then this is for you. If you want a good sci-fi flick that is simply fun to watch, forget this one. Both the original, and the alternate endings were grossly disappointing to me. All that, AND this movie was too preachy.",Negative "H.G. Wells in 1936 was past his prime and the books of his that will survive were long gone by. He was coming to the end of his life and he was confronted to his dream gone sour. At the very beginning of the 20th century he defended the idea that the world was doomed because the evolution of species, natural biology, on one side, and Marxism, market economy on the other side, were necessarily leading to the victory of the weaker over the stronger due to the simple criterion of number. The weaker were the mass of humanity and the stronger were the minority elite. He defended then a strict eugenic policy with the elimination of all those who were in a way or another weakening the human race. First of all the non-Caucasian, with the only exception of the Jews who would disappear thanks to mixed marriages. Then, within the Caucasian community all those who were not healthy, the alcoholics, the mentally disabled, all those who were genetically disabled, etc. That was not Hitler. That was H.G. Wells and that was not after the first world war. That was more than ten years before. And twenty years before the first world war he had published The Time Machine that defended the idea that the human ""race"", left to its own means and due to the vaster cosmological evolution of life on earth, would see the differentiation of the human ""race"" into two ""species"": the working class would become a subterranean laborious species and the bourgeoisie would become an idle surface species. The point was in the novel that the surface sophisticated and weak idle species was the prey of the other species who were the predators. Wells was convinced humanity was in danger and politicians were supposed to stop this evolution by imposing a strict eugenic policy. The first countries to follow this injunction were the Scandinavian countries who were also the last to drop it only very recently for some of them. The film here proposes a vision of 2036 with a world government that is absolutely dictatorial in the fact that there is no election, no parliament, no really democratic institution, only peace imposed by military conquest, and the government is dominated by one man or at the most one man and his few councilors. And in that future world all, absolutely all human beings are Caucasians. Wells was able to imagine humanity being completely white by 2036. Amazing. Wells envisaged some kind of a rebellion but that would be short lived and lead to nothing at all. The last sentences are the vision of this white civilization conquering the whole universe when contemplating the sky and its stars and planets. Frightening. And that was produced in 1936. All the more frightening since nowhere the slightest mention of Hitlerism, fascism, Japanese imperialism or Stalinism can be found. But it is essential to have that film in a good restored edition because it is crucial to have a full vision of H.G. Wells. We are obviously very far away from the Brave New World of absolute ""democratic"" social selection, or the Animal Farm of the dictatorship of the porcine proletariat, or the 1984 of the abstract mediatic dictatorship of Big Brother. This vision is at least just as much frightening as the three others. And I only want to compare Wells with the British science fiction writers of his days. It would be unfair to go beyond. This reveals that in England in these first three decades of the 20th century there was a tremendous fear among intellectuals: the fear that the future would only be somber, bleak and in the form of an impasse of some kind.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines",Positive "Unlike ""The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai"", or ""Big Trouble in Little China"", or ""Conan the Barbarian"", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.

The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy ""flip attitude"" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The ""mystic secrets"" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.

Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?

Who should see this film:

-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves

-- I can't think of anyone else

I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.",Negative Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a soid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis.,Positive """Algie, the Miner"" is one bad and unfunny silent comedy. The timing of the slapstick is completely off. This is the kind of humor with certain sequences that make you wonder if they're supposed to be funny or not. However, the actual quality of the film is irrelevant. This is mandatory viewing for film buffs mainly because its one of the earliest examples of gay cinema. The main character of Algie is an effeminate guy, acting much like the stereotypical ""pansy"" common in many early films. The film has the homophobic attitude common of the time. ""Algie, the Miner"" is pretty awful, but fascinating from a historical viewpoint. (3/10)",Negative "I'll be quick to address the matters of the film here: It was a very engaging story about the destructive qualities about all-consuming passions; a young Italian woman who cannot emotionally connect with her jailed political-radical fiancé (due in part to her apolitical attitudes and freewheeling approach to life) finds solace and passion in a new young lover whom she embarks on an explicitly sexual relationship with. The anxieties, rage, tenderness and passions that swirl around in the atmosphere of the story equal the dispassionate quiet that seems to engulf the two leads. It lends the film an unsettling mood that permeates through all the political strife that is otherwise lost on the viewer (unless you have a deep knowledge of Italian politics during the 80's). I found the film compelling...what ruined it somewhat is a gratuitous oral sex scene that the actress performs on the male lead...it isn't simulated and leaves little to the imagination. There are other scenes of sex in the film, which I do feel were necessary because they outline the madness and loneliness that the characters live in. But the oral sex scene, I feel, derails the focus on the actual story. It was smooth sailing up until that point and once the infamous sex scene appears (which caused much hoopla back in its day), it's like hitting a roadblock. It's jarring and unnecessary and I am in the camp that believes that the film would not have been harmed any if the scene had been removed from it. And what's unfortunate is that this particular scene may deter people from watching this intriguing film, which I believe is worth a viewing because there is so much going on underneath the surface, emotions and further turmoils layered in the subtext.

Overall: Wonderful film hampered by a much not-needed sex scene.",Positive "I really liked this movie, it was good, and the actors were brilliant! Leon Robinson, who played Richard, and many other classic singers, is very good at his job, when you see him in a musical movie, you know that it is going to be good! I would suggest that people watch this heart warming, sad, and special movie, if they want to know more about Richard! Outstanding! Fresh!",Positive "The longer this film went on-and it seemed to tediously go on for ever- the more annoyed I became, as quite frankly, what a waste of time sitting through this total nonsense. How on earth do people get to make films like this,or indeed receive finance for such rubbish? Don't be fooled by the relatively high ratings on IMDb as it just proves you can fool some of the people all the time. And in this picture the main players have an obsession with guns, so it is not difficult to work out the way this movie will ultimately unfold. America can never understand that the rest of the world finds it bizarre how society in the USA has such an obscene and fatal 'gun culture'.

Anyhow:

The lead actor portrays a loser who escapes into a fantasy world of being a cowboy in an Urban sprawl.He comes across a family with two spoiled brat children, a teenage girl and boy; taken care of by a strict single parent father who can barely cope. The cowboy is seduced by the teenage girl or vice-versa, and the impressionable boy is seemingly taken in by the lunacy of the loser.

The cowboy spends the whole time in a state of unreality and depression.A total loser who prefers to go to the beach then work for living, and then commits a burglary on his family as he is too lazy to make money legally.

Ask yourself:

Who wants to watch either a sad failed loser in a fantasy world holding a death wish, or indeed view a poor family who are in effect not much better than white trash?!

This film is pointless drivel.

It only saves itself from getting the lowest mark possible by some half listen able music:

2/10.",Negative "One of the most important artistic movements in the history of cinema was without a doubt German expressionism, the highly atmospheric style of film-making developed during the 20s in Berlin. Classic movies like ""Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari."" (1920) and ""Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens"" (1922) were the most famous direct results of this movement, and while the movement didn't have a long life, its enormous influence over cinema can still be felt today, specially in the horror genre. One of the key figures of this style would be director Paul Wegener, director of 1920's ""Der Golem, Wie Er in die Welt Kam"", as in his debut as a filmmaker, seven years before the making of that classic, he was already making experiments with expressionism in film. That early prototype of German expressionism was incidentally, another horror film: ""Der Student Von Prag"".

""Der Student Von Prag"" (""The Student of Prague""), is the story of Balduin (Paul Wegener), a student with the reputation of being the best fencer in Prague, but who always find himself with financial troubles. One day, Balduin rescues the beautiful countess Margit (Grete Berger) from drowning in a lake after her horse drop her by accident. Balduin falls immediately in love with her and tries to see her again, but soon he discovers that he'll have to compete with her rich cousin, Graf Von Schwarzenberg (Lothar Körner), who also wants to marry her. Knowing that he can't offer her much, Balduin wishes to be wealthy, and this is where a sorcerer named Scapinelli (John Gottowt) enters the scene. Scapinelli offers Balduin infinite wealth in exchange of whatever he finds in his room. Balduin accepts the proposal, only to discover in horror that what Scapinelli wants is his reflection in the mirror.

Loosely inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story ""William Wilson"" and the classic legend of ""Faust"", the story of ""Der Student Von Prag"" was conceived by German writer Hanns Heinz Ewers, a master of horror literature and one of the first writers to consider scriptwriting as valid as any other form of literature. Written at a time where cinema in Germany was still being developed as an art form, ""Der Student Von Prag"" shows a real willingness to actually use cinema to tell a fully developed story beyond a camera trick or a series of scenes. Like most of the scriptwriters of his time, Ewers screenplay is still very influenced by theater, although ""Der Student Von Prag"" begins to move away from that style. While a bit poor on its character development (specially on the supporting characters), Ewers manages to create an interesting and complex protagonist in the person of Balduin.

While ""Der Student Von Prag"" was Paul Wegener's directorial debut and Stellan Rye's second film as a filmmaker, it's very clear that these two pioneers had a very good idea of what cinema could do when done properly. Giving great use to Guido Seeber's cinematography, the two young filmmakers create a powerful Gothic atmosphere that forecasts what the German filmmakers of the following decade would do. Wegener would learn many of the techniques he would employ in his ""Golem"" series from Seeber and Rye. Despite having very limited resources, Rye and Wegener manage to create an amazing and very convincing (for its time) visual effect for the scenes with Balduin's reflection (played by Wegener too). Already an experienced stage actor at the time of making this film, Wegener directs the cast with great talent and also attempts to move away from the stagy style of previous filmmakers.

As Balduin, Paul Wegener is very effective and probably the best in the movie. It certainly helps that his character is the only one fully developed by the writer, but one can't deny that Wegener was very good in his role as the poor student who loses more than his mirror reflection in that contract. John Gottowt plays the sinister Scapinelli with mysterious aura that suits the character like a glove. Few is said about Scapinelli in the film, but Gottowt makes sure to let us know that he is a force to be feared. The rest of the main cast is less lucky, with Grete Berger being pretty much average as countess Margit, and Lothar Körner making a poor Graf Von Schwarzenberg. However, it must be said that Lyda Salmonova was pretty good in her expressive character and Fritz Weidemann made an excellent Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg, showing the dignity that Lörner's character should have had.

Considering the movies that were being done in those years in other countries and the fact that its remake (made 13 years after this film) is superior in every possible way, it's not difficult to understand why ""Der Student Von Prag"" hasn't stood the test of time as well as other early films. The movie's main problem is definitely its extremely low budget, as it resulted in the film being considerably shorter than what Ewers' story needed to be fully developed. This makes the plot feel a bit too vague at times, or even incomplete, as if there was something missing in the narrative (of course, there's also the possibility that the existing print is really incomplete). However, ""Der Student Von Prag"" is a very interesting early attempt at a complex tale of horror and suspense in film that, while inferior to what other filmmakers were doing at the time, left a powerful impression in history.

As the direct predecessor of the German expressionist movement, it's hard to deny the enormous importance that ""Der Student Von Prag"" has in the history of German cinema, probably in the history of cinema in general. It may look dated even for its time, but considering the limited resources its director had, it's truly better than most films from that era. As the movie that started Paul Wegener's career, and with that German expressionism, ""Der Student Von Prag"" is a must see for everyone interested in this slice of film history. 7/10",Positive "The daughter's words are poetry: ""I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room."" ""I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves."" ""The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal."" ""I'm pulverized by this latest thing."" ""..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time."" ""..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better."" And there is wisdom in the mother's words: ""...yes the pleasure is all mine."" ""This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye."" ""Always one must do everything correctly."" ""Where the hell did you come from?"" ""...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music."" ""I'm your mother. Remember me?"" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.",Positive "The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines",Positive "Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best.",Positive "This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.

The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.

The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.

The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.",Positive "Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.

While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more ""traditionally"", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.

Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.

There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.",Negative "I have just recently purchased collection one of this awesome series and even after just watching three episodes, I still am mesmerized by sleek styling of the animation and the slow, yet thoughtful actions of the story-telling. I am still a fan.....with some minor pains.

Though this installment into the Gundam saga is very cool and has what the previous series had-a stylish satiric way of telling about the wrongs of war and not letting go of the need to have control or power over everything(sound familiar?), I have to say that this one gets a bit too mellow-dramatic on continuing to explain the lives of the main characters and their incessant need to belly-ache about every thing that happens and what they need to do to stop the OZ group from succeeding in their plans(especially the character called Wufei...I mean he whines more than an American character on a soap opera. Get a counselor,will ya?)

Besides for the over-exaggerated drama(I think that mostly comes from the dubbing of the English voice actors), this series is still very exciting and will still captivate me once again. I mean it can always be worse. It could be like the recent installment, SEED......eeeewwww, talk about mellow-dramatic....I'll chat about that one later.",Positive "I thought this would be a sequel to the original ""36th Chamber of Shaolin"" but actually it's more of a light-hearted ""sister"" to the original. Gordon Liu still stars as a would-be hero on a quest to learn kung fu to defeat those pesky Manchus... but this time around it's lighter and more comedic. The film centres around the local dye mill, where wages are cut due to the hiring of 10 new Manchurian bosses. Liu plays ""Chao"", who is able to fool the mill bosses into thinking he is a shaolin monk possessing almost magical kung fu skill. But his luck runs out, he is exposed as a fraud, and he promises the mill workers that he will go to the Shaolin monastery to learn kung fu, and return to protect them.

The comedy really begins at the monastery where Chao makes several bungling attempts to get accepted. This sets up lots of really funny moments, and lots of great fight choreography. Continuing in the ""36th Chamber"" tradition we see all kinds of neat and interesting (and supremely hokey) training methods at the monastery as well as creative uses of wooden benches as weapons.

Also unique and of note is the blending of kung fu and the craft of bamboo scaffold building. Chao is not accepted as a student at Shaolin but is made to build bamboo scaffolding for the ""10 year restoration"" of the monastery. On the DVD I bought there is a special on bamboo scaffold building and the inspiration that director Lau Kar-Leung drew from it. This is a craft many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old, and in Hong Kong scaffolding is still built of bamboo even on large high-rises, though the West exclusively uses steel tubes and clamps. As a result of his scaffolding work, Chao develops a special style of kung fu... when asked what kind it is, he hilariously replies ""scaffolding kung fu!!"" which he first tests during a dust-up with the monastery's Abbot. In the final confrontation with the Manchus, there is a dazzling array of creative uses for bamboo poles and ties.

From a comedy perspective, I think it's one of the best of the kung fu genre. As a kung fu film in general, it also stands out... I recommend it to anyone!",Positive "I caught this Cuban film at at an arthouse film club. It was shown shortly after the magisterial 1935 Silly Symphony cartoon where the Isle of Symphony is reconciled with the Isle of Jazz. What with the recently deceased Ruben Gonzalez piped through speakers in this old cinema-ballroom and a Cuban flag hanging from peeling stucco rocaille motifs, the scene was set for a riproaring celebration of engaged filmmaking and synchronised hissing at the idiocies of Helms-Burton. But then the film started. And the cinema's peeling paint gradually became more interesting than the shoddy mess on-screen.

The storyline of Nada Mas promises much. Carla is a bored envelope-stamper at a Cuban post office. Her only escape from an altogether humdrum existence is to purloin letters and rewrite them, transforming basic interpersonal grunts into Brontëan outbursts of breathless emotion. Cue numerous shots of photogenic Cubans gushing with joy, grief, pity, terror and the like.

The problem is that the simplicity of the narrative is marred by endless excursions into film-school artiness, latino caricature, Marx brothers slapstick and even - during a particularly underwhelming editing trick - the celluloid scratching of a schoolkid defacement onto a character's face.

Unidimensional characters abound. Cunda, the boss at the post office, is a humourless dominatrix-nosferatu. Her boss-eyed accomplice, Concha, variously points fingers, eavesdrops and screeches. Cesar, the metalhead dolt and romantic interest, reveals hidden writing talent when Carla departs for Miami. A chase scene (in oh-so-hilarious fast-forward) is thrown in for good measure. All this would be fine in a Mortadello and Filemon comic strip, but in a black-and-white zero-FX flick with highbrow pretensions, ahem.

Nada Mas attempts to straddle the stile somewhere between the 'quirky-heroine-matchmakes-strangers' of Amelie and the 'poetry-as-great-redeemer' theme of Il Postino. Like Amelie, its protagonist is an eccentric single white female who combats impending spinsterdom by trying to bring magic into the lives of strangers. And like Il Postino, the film does not flinch from sustained recitals of poetry and a postman on a bicycle takes a romantic lead. Unfortunately, Nada Mas fails to capture the lushness and transcendence of either film.

There are two things that might merit watching this film in a late-night TV stupor. The first is the opening overhead shot of Carla on a checker-tiled floor, which cuts to the crossword puzzle she is working on. The second is to see Nada Mas as a cautionary example: our post Buena Vista Social Club obsession with Cuban artistic output can often blinker us into accepting any dross that features a bongo on the soundtrack. This film should not have merited a global release - films such as Waiting List and Guantanamera cover similar thematic territory far more successfully.",Negative "I was a kid .. crazy about Michael Jackson. His music, his dancing .. He was and is the greatest of all times. Few days ago a friend gave me a present .. ""Moonwalker"" DVD .. I just couldn't believe it! So I took my time and saw the movie again.. After a lot of years, and it kicked me back in time. I almost cried. Not because of Michael Jackson but of the good old times I remembered back than when I went to his concerts, enjoying music and dancing. The movie gave me some other perspective than back then when i was a kid. You can truly see the parody that Michael went through his life. Thank You Michael Jackson to bring me back to those great times, to Your great music and dancing. It's a shame that people has forgotten You .. I didn't because You gave me great moments with your music .. All the best to You where ever You are out there ..",Positive "Nine out of ten might seem like a high mark to give for a straight to video sci-fi movie that's been vilified at the US box office and roundly criticized as the poorest movie of Kurt Russell's career.

I have my reasons.

Firstly when you read negative reviews of this film, they usually start with the wooden nature of Russell's interpretation of Todd, the eponymous Soldier. I'm going to start here too, with my surprising statement that this is possibly the finest piece of acting I've seen Russell pull off. Todd is an emotional cripple and suffering from intense PTSD - this movie being written before the phenomenon was as widely recognized as it is now.

The portrayal is spot on. Todd is withdrawn, uncommunicative and a loner. He suffers from irrational anxiety - keyed to a fever pitch by training that teaches him to analyze every movement and interaction with another human being for signs of betrayal and danger. His hyper-focus brings with it an inability to comprehend the bigger continuum that the tasks he is given to do sit within - there is a scene where he cuts himself slicing carrots and continues to work unfazed, not cleaning up the cut or the blood. Many interpret this as a sign of his physical toughness and focus on the job at hand, but it is also a sign that he is simply performing the requested task by rote - not comprehending the relationship between the vegetables he's preparing and the food that will be eaten later.

Todd's dialog is spartan to say the least - the two big talking scenes he gets are central to the plot of the movie and both underline the bleak nature of his existence. Fear and Discipline we are told. Always. Fear to keep him pumped up to a hyper alert state where the smallest detail will not pass him by, keeping him ready to react on a knife edge. Discipline to hold him in check through his fear, to overcome it and perform tactically. The inference is that he has no time to think and cannot afford feelings. Many viewers have different interpretations of his reaction to the hug from Nielsen's Sandra - but I believe you have to interpret it from the perspective of a human who's only experience of an embrace is in combat - the trembling represents him suppressing his fight / flight instincts reacting to the fear of being grappled, his movement and vision restricted - Fear and Discipline indeed.

Then there is the subtext of his abandonment (Twice in fact) - so representative of the way our society tends to toss infantrymen onto the rubbish heap of society when they've served their terms. 40% of the unemployed are ex-military in OUR world, in HIS it can only be worse. Russell quickly picks up the mantle of Mace's responsibility to his wife and child - desperately in need of a mission, even one with such a high likelihood of his death.

Then there is the military subtext too - the conflict between Busey's Church and the hotshot from HQ, Mekum. Mekum's new men are faster, stronger, more accurate and aggressive. Any one of them could pound Todd into the ground - but it's not about the tools you have it's how you use them. An incentivized Todd given the freedom to exercise his initiative and acting without the numbing effect of perceived superiority utilizes ambush tactics and sneaky tricks to cut a swathe through the newer unit - sent in without support, cover or reconnaissance. It is a reminder that military power cannot make up for a failure in leadership.

There are many other subtle themes. When a film is shot and scripted so minimally, it leaves plenty of white space for your own interpretations to take root. Watch Soldier with an open mind and see what it teaches YOU.",Positive "My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token ""gay"" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!",Negative "When my 14-year-old daughter and her friends get together for movie night, there's one movie they insist on watching over and over again: You guessed it, K-911, the third installment in the highly successful K-9 franchise starring everybody's favorite TV dad, Jim Belushi.

Folks, I knew it was possible to wear out a VHS tape, but a DVD?! This has been played so often that it's starting to skip; no joke! But of course you'll have that when you own a film so charming, so brilliant.

Of course, we have to thank the one and only Tom Hanks for introducing us to the beloved Cop-Dog genre with Turner and Hooch; however, even that film doesn't measure up to the sheer excellence presented in all three K-9 movies.

Some nay-sayers say Belushi ran out of steam with this third movie in the series. Poppycock, I say. While you might suspect that a third installment - direct-to-video, at that - may not seem like something worth watching, you'd prove yourself wrong after watching this quality movie.

I won't give away the plot, but I will say that Belushi and his panting partner give their best performance yet - one that will have you HOWLING with laughter! It's a shame John Belushi isn't alive to see what great strides his brother has made in the acting world.

I highly recommend your teenage daughter introduces this film to her BFFs at her next slumber party. Don't forget the puppy chow!",Positive "1939 is universally accepted as the greatest year in Hollywood history, with more classic films released than in any other, and John Ford directed three of the best, ""Stagecoach"", ""Drums Along the Mohawk"", and this beautiful homage to frontier days and a young backwoods lawyer destined to eventually save the Union, ""Young Mr. Lincoln"".

With the world plunging into a war that America dreaded, but knew it would be drawn into, Abraham Lincoln was much on people's minds, in 1939, as someone who had faced the same dilemma in his own life, and had triumphed. On Broadway, Robert E. Sherwood's award-winning ""Abe Lincoln in Illinois"", with Raymond Massey's physically dead-on portrayal, was playing to packed houses (it would be filmed in 1940). Carl Sandburg's continuation of his epic biography, ""Abraham Lincoln: The War Years"", was published, and quickly became a best seller. President Roosevelt frequently referred to Lincoln in speeches, and the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C., became the most popular landmark in town (a fact that Frank Capra made good use of, in ""Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"").

All this was not lost on Darryl F. Zanuck, at 20th Century Fox; as soon as he read Lamar Trotti's screenplay of Lincoln's early days as a lawyer, he designated it a 'prestige' production, and assigned John Ford to direct, and Henry Fonda, to star.

Fonda did NOT want to play Lincoln; he felt he couldn't do justice to the 'Great Emancipator', and feared a bad performance would damage his career. Even a filmed make-up test, in which he was stunned by how much he would resemble Lincoln, wouldn't change his mind. According to Fonda, John Ford, whom he'd never worked with, cussed him out royally, at their first meeting, and explained he wasn't portraying the Lincoln of Legend, but a young ""jackanape"" country lawyer facing his first murder trial. Humbled, Fonda took the role. (John Ford offered a different scenario of the events, but the outcome was the same!) Obviously, they found a chemistry together that worked, as nearly all of their pairings would produce 'classics'.

Unlike the introverted, melancholia-racked Lincoln of ""Abe Lincoln in Illinois"", Ford's vision was that of a shy but likable young attorney, who made friends easily, and misses the mother he lost, too young (resulting in a bond with a pioneer mother that becomes a vital part of the story). Injustice riles him, and he speaks 'common sense' to quell violence, interlaced with doses of humor. Both productions play on Lincoln's (undocumented) relationship with Ann Rutledge; in Ford's version, the pair are truly in love, and committed to each other. After her death, Lincoln would frequently visit her grave, to share his life with her 'spirit' (a theme Ford would continue in ""She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"").

A murder trial is the centerpiece of the film, and shows the prodigious talents of the star and director. Fonda deftly portrays Lincoln's inexperience, yet earnest belief in justice tempered with mercy, and Ford emphasizes the gulf between the big-city 'intellectuals' (represented by pompous D.A. Donald Meek, and his slick 'advisor', Stephen Douglas, played by a young Milburn Stone), and the informal, rule-bending country sense of Lincoln. With Ford 'regular' Ward Bond as a key witness, the trial is both unconventional, and riveting.

With the film closing as Lincoln strides away into the stormy distance, and his destiny (dissolving into a view of the statue at the Lincoln Memorial), audiences could take comfort in the film's message that if a cause is just, good would ultimately triumph.

""Young Mr. Lincoln"" is a truly remarkable film, from an amazing year!",Positive "Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining.",Positive "Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing.",Positive "This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.",Negative "William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is ""Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story"".

I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.)

His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of ""13 Ghosts"" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for ""The Tingler"" (see separate review), money back guarantees for ""Homicidal""... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.

The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to ""Rosemary's Baby"", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.

The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not ""E! True Hollywood Story"". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.

I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film.",Positive "This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping ""Was that it?!"" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz",Negative I was never a big fan of television until I watched 24 for the first time. I got into the series very late. Season 5 ended before I even saw my very first episode. It was an episode of Series 3 that was on my parents DVR (digital video recorder) box while I was house sitting for the weekend. It took that one episode for me to be hook line and sinker into the world of Jack Bauer. And boy was I hooked!! I watched the next six episodes without blinking an eye. The next day I went to Blockbuster and signed up for an unlimited month pass for twenty something dollars and needless to say it has been the greatest blockbuster money I've ever spent. I watched the first three seasons in three weeks. That's 72 forty minute episodes!!! I will say that finding out what happens next is easier on DVD than waiting an entire week. I can only imagine the anticipation of watching Season 6 week to week!! I find it mildly torturous and cruel but I'm going to give it a try and watch it just like the rest of America!! The DVR is set and you can bet I'll be chomping at the bit!!,Positive "I saw this movie when Mystery Science Theater ran it in 1993. It is the worst thing I've ever seen. So bad in fact, that by sheer freakiness, this movie must get a ten rating because it has to be seen to be believed.

Whoever wrote this script with children in mind should be beaten. I mean, really, the Devil vs. Santa? Visions of Hell? Creepy laughing wind-up reindeer? Forced Child labor with racial stereotypes? It ain't Sesame Street, that's for sure.As Crow exclaims during the MST3K showing, ""This is good ol' fashioned nightmare fuel!""

There's plenty of weird innuendo and screwed up theology. Merlin (presumably the Arthurian Merlin) hangs out with Santa in his crazy castle in the clouds (i.e. Heaven). Santa talks about baby Jesus and sends letters to ""Mr. Stork"" for children who ask for siblings. There are symbols around the castle that either look like pentagrams or RAF stars.

My best friend and I have watch it every year since 1993 and we subject anybody we can hold down for 2 hours to watch it with us.",Positive "It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. ""Basic Instinct 2"" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica ""Basic Instinct"" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since ""Instinct 2"" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.

The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.

And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this ""Instinct"". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. ""Instinct"" is a compelling torture.

To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. ""Instinct 2"" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....

""Basic Instinct 2"" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10",Negative "Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the ""Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1""

My Grade: C",Negative "JACKNIFE is a fine adaptation of Stephen Metcalfe's play 'Strange Snow' (the screenplay was also written by Metcalfe), sensitively directed by David Hugh Jones, that explores the too frequently forgotten effect of battle on veterans damaged permanently by the heinous cruelties of war. It is especially poignant to return to this 1989 film now as we watch the soldiers returning from the war in Iraq and the raw treatment they are receiving in our Veterans' Hospitals.

Three friends went off to the Vietnam War together and only two returned alive: the problem is that while both men suffered in battle the one David 'Highschool' Flannigan (Ed Harris) is so severely damaged by posttraumatic stress syndrome that he 'exists' in a drunken vacuum with his very plain schoolteacher sister Martha (Kathy Baker). As David deteriorates his buddy Joseph 'Jacknife' Megessey (Robert De Niro) returns to the town in an attempt to help his friend. In the course of events Jacknife at first offers succor to Martha and eventually the two date - at a Prom Martha must attend - and at that prom drunken David completely falls apart, destroying relics in the school and terrifying the townspeople and students. Jacknife makes Dave relive the moment in Vietnam when they lost their buddy and in doing so brings David to the point where he can begin his climb toward recovery. And the long-suffering Martha finds her needs tended by Jacknife, too.

All three actors give astonishingly fine performances: Ed Harris offers one of his most fully realized roles while De Niro and Baker maintain the high standards set by their careers. More people should help resurrect this all but forgotten film as it is a brittle reminder of the damages our wars bring to the men who fight them and to the families who receive them after battle's end. Highly recommended. Grady Harp",Positive "I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons.",Negative "Some films manage to survive almost on originality alone - ""Wonderland"" is certainly one of those films. The script manages to throw everything into a near-fever pitch, but without making it incoherent. The speed of this thriller is not to chosen to cover up a weak script, but rather to accurately reflect the drug-addled reality.

As director, James Cox as a very peculiar way of working his actors. Most of the characters are perpetually on edge, and often because they're rather quite ugly personalities. Val Kilmer has described John Holmes to be a hustler, able to manipulate and control. No offense to Kilmer, but his version of Holmes seems only able to control the drastically weak-minded. Nonetheless, it's a stunning performance. Comparing this to Kilmer's more 'Hollywood' roles like in ""The Saint"" it seems to prove he is far more at home in gritty indie flicks.

The actors are the main force holding all together. There are various little performances that stand out - especially the women. Carrie Fisher, Kate Bosworth, and Lisa Kudrow all have limited screen time next to their male counterparts, but they are all fantastic. Aside from Kilmer, Ted Levine and Dylan McDermott give a weird, stunning energy to their roles.

I originally put off watching ""Wonderland"" because I assumed it was a film about a porn actor, in the strictest sense. Yes, the story revolves around John Holmes, but it has literally nothing to do with his professional career. Basically, this film is a murder mystery, and as such - it's excellent.

RATING: 7.5 out of 10",Positive "I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.",Negative "I find Alan Jacobs review very accurate concerning the movie;however I had the opportunity to rent the DVD from blockbuster with a commentary from BYU's Curator, Motion Picture Archives James D'Arc. The then LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant approved of the movie understanding the deviations from historic content for dramatic expression and telescoping events. For example the movie showed Joseph Smith on trial. despite Brigham Young's great oratory in defense of Joseph Smith he was convicted anyway. Then Joseph was killed. Historically Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Brigham Young was in Boston when Joseph Smith was arrested for this particular trial. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum where both killed before the trial took place.",Positive "To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.

I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.

They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style.

The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra.

This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night.",Positive "At what point exactly does a good movie go bad? When does a movie go from ""watchable"" to ""where's that &^@_+#!* OFF switch""? Thank goodness for DVDs, like this one, that can be borrowed from the library - for free! Likewise, thank goodness for the ""fast forward"" switch on the DVD player. I feel sorry for those people who were duped at the box office.

At one point (I've forgotten exactly when because now it's all just a blur), our ""hero,"" Luke Wilson starts running through traffic; I think he was looking for a cab. It was at that point when I gave up, realizing I couldn't care whether he found his ride or got run over by a garbage truck.

The last time the movie was interesting was when Luke Wilson climbs out of the dumpster, hair dryer in hand, and first meets the ""heroine,"" Uma Thurman. That scene ended with the purse-snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far, far above the departing Luke and Uma. That was the last time the movie was funny, and when was that scene? Ten minutes into the flick?

Every time the movie tried to become ""funny,"" it couldn't. Every time the movie approached ""excitement,"" it fizzled out, heading in the opposite direction. When a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard, the sound track stayed empty and silent.

The sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame; the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. When Uma turns into the crazy ex-girlfriend, I felt like I was watching ""The 40 Year Old Virgin Meets Pulp Fiction""; that's when I realized that there was no turning back because I thoroughly disliked ""The 40 Year Old Virgin"" and ""Pulp Fiction.""

Luke Wilson's sidekick, Rainn Wilson (also seen in the dreary ""The Last Mimzy"") adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. Rainn Wilson, the King of Television Boredom, should stay with that equally awful medium. Hey, Rainn Wilson! Leave full-length motion pictures alone! Every time Uma's rival, Anna Faris, came on screen, I expected Jason or Freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery; once you see Anna Faris in ""Scary Movie,"" that's all you ever see, no matter the movie, no matter the medium. The character played by Wanda Sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this flick.",Negative "Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.

But with lines like :

""It's easy to die, I have, many times""

and

""Why are you reading that book ?"" ""Because it makes the plot more interesting""

and

""You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !"" (after he leads a man into the basement)

(and take a listen to what they chant)

- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?

An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.",Negative "I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.",Negative "Loved it but still have nightmares over the hotel manager.The movie, was presented well, with the choice of actors carrying their roles to reality of the writing. Many scenes gripped the imagination and created a nail biter. The progression of situations were cleverly written,making me believe the story was headed one way only to find a new twist on what I thought might be the obvious. Too bad there have to be commercials.I have told many friends to watch for further showings and I of course will view again.I enjoyed the scenery of the film and felt this added to the plots and intrigue. Husband and wife heated discussions(or should I say fights?) were very realistic.The initial situation is a common one but the escalation into the story presented fortunately is not.I want to thank all who were involved in this great entertainment film. Thank you! Looking forward to the next films---when? Whidbey",Positive "Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book ""Evil Angels"" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.

Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.

This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.",Positive "As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my ""to rent"" list when I saw it was available.

The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.

Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want ""fair"" in terms of exploitation, you got it.

I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.",Negative "

Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.

To quote Buffy Summers, ""If the apocalypse comes...beep me.""

Going back to sleep now.",Negative "Stumbling upon this HBO special late one night, I was absolutely taken by this attractive British ""executive transvestite."" I have never laughed so hard over European History or any of the other completely worthwhile point Eddie Izzard made. I laughed so much that I woke up my mother sleeping at the other end of the house...",Positive "This movie is supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote.",Negative "Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever .

You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie

People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen

Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie",Negative "I saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I grew up in Scottsdale and I went to Arizona State and really enjoyed seeing locations where I spent so much time. I remember at the time thinking that Barbara's venture into more of a rock sound (actually R and B-to my ears) was a successful one. I was never a fan of Kris's singing until his last effort for New West. As a songwriter and an actor, though, he has serious chops, IMHO. I think it is a fine romance. I like it better than the Judy Garland version and never saw Selznick's Janet Gaynor original.

I do believe that they made some changes in this long-awaited DVD release. Among other things, I recall the helicopter shot which reveals a packed Sun Devil Stadium being longer and more dramatic. I wish they had done a better job writing music for Kris or God forbid, put some of his original songs in there.

Along those lines I have some information from a primary source that says that the music was a problem for Kris and Barbara. While doing interviews for my own new music documentary, Rocking the Boat: A Musical Conversation and Journey, I interviewed Stephen Bruton, a fine singer/songwriter/guitarist with close professional and personal ties to Kris, Bonnie Raitt, and Delbert McClinton, among many others. Stephen was in ""Speedway,"" the John Norman character's band. Kris was having a real hard time turning what was essentially a pop score into something that could pass for rock. Stephen was and is Kris's friend and long time band member. There was tension on the set and at one point the band was barking at Kris in Barbara's presence. She remarked to the effect that the band shouldn't talk to him like that. Kris came right back to the effect that they were his friends and they WERE rock and roll! In the end, Barbara came around and decided to use Kris's band's live performances in the movie and specifically sited Stephen's role in making things work. I gained even greater respect for her as an artist upon hearing this story. Much is made of her as a diva. What she is is a pro. And I am not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.",Positive "I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).

Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.

The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.

I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.

Overall, forgettable.",Negative "This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.

But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie!",Negative "Now I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickey…the days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying ""It was Mary!"" and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.",Negative this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!,Negative "Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the ""filthy bum"" who then shouts after them in anger ""you filthy bums"", I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence!",Negative "Remember H.G. Wells' ""The Invisible Man""? Well here's another movie like it, only more extreme. ""Hollow Man"" is like no one story about invisibility as a weapon of choice. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientific genius who goes out into the world of invisibility and making it useful for military purposes. At first making the serum was the easy part, making the person come back was not. Most of the first tries ended up unstable. Until one night, when he perfected the formula. And who else, but Caine would be the lab rat. The gorilla was the first and almost died, so when he came to, it was a close one. So when the did Caine, he decided to use it for fun. Then when he got tired of being not seen, the team tried their best to bring him back to the world of the flesh. However, the visibility formula happens to not work the way it should, and Caine would delve into madness. So he ends up being one mad invisible killer. It would be best to just get out of town instead of taking the lives of people that are close to you. I would care less about the ones who did you wrong. Great movie, plenty of fun. 3 out of 5 stars!",Positive "

Have you ever felt like your being watched, like someone keeps tabs on every move you make? Well, just remember before you decide to break the law, the FBI will always be there. At least that's the feeling you get after watching the gripping but slightly mellow crime drama, The FBI story. It traces the roots of the organization from a small bureau to one of the most modern facilities in the world (in 1959), by telling the story through they eyes of one of its agents, Chip Hardesty (James Stewart).

Chip was with the FBI from day one, and he gladly puts his job above everything else in the world, even occasionally his family. The FBI Story tracks his life by depicting what he does as an agent, and how being one affects his personal life. The film does a spectacular job of showing what kind of cases the FBI handles and how they handle them. The audience gets to see Chip stop Ku Klux Klan riots, go undercover to solve an Indian murder/estate scandal, bring fugitives into custody, rescue hostages, and helped fight in WWII. He even helped bring Communist spies to justice.

Stewart, in a vaguely complex performance, is stellar (as always) as the slightly neurotic agent who loves his job maybe a little too much. One of the best parts about this film is that we get to see the inside workings of both Chip's family life and his job. We witness him suffer through the death of his best friend and then his son. We also observe his wife having a miscarriage, and his marriage having rocky times. Almost all of his personal problems are caused by love of his job. Vera Miles gives a spotty performance, but it's very convincing, none the less. She was never a brilliant actress, but there was always something very attractive and alluring about her. Well maybe that's just me? Sadly, none of the other performances are worth mentioning, but the attention-grabbing story managed to keep me exceedingly interested.

The cinematography of this film was impressive, especially the scenes in the South American jungles. The colors all had a texture that really set the atmosphere of the film. Perhaps the greatest part of this movie was Mervyn Leroy's fabulous direction. Every scene was so fluid they just rolled together to tell a brilliant story. It's chock full of ingenious camera shots, some with a very Hitchcockian feel.

All in all, The FBI Story is a spectacular, but overlooked film. Clocking in at two and a half hours some viewers might be intimidated, but if you get the chance I recommend jumping into this one. I enjoyed Jimmy Stewart's spectacular performance, and the captivating story.",Positive "This movie was amazingly bad. I don't think I've ever seen a movie where every attempt at humor failed as miserably. Let's see...the acting was pathetic, the ""special effects"" where horrible, the plot non-existant...that pretty much sums up this movie.

",Negative "This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy.",Negative "Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the ""twists"" are downright cruel.",Negative "CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.

CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).

Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.

In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.

CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.

The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.

Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.

His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.

So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.

Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.

Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.

5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.

The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.

In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.

Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.

A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.

Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.

CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.

WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.

Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.

Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.

Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10)",Positive "What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful.

",Negative "This kind of ""inspirational"" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.",Negative "Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?

Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.",Negative "I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.

I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that ""thou shalt not steal"" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.",Negative "What a terrible movie. Rotten tomatoes had a good rating for this too. don't be fooled by the positive comments; It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It won't even hold your attention. I just wasted 2 hours of my life viewing this crap-fest. the computer generated monster was interesting to see the first couple times. after about 15 minutes it no longer entertained. the dialogue was terrible, must be a translation thing. another negative that stood out was the idiot Americans. 3 were portrayed and they were all lacking character, intelligence and judgment. Now I will write a couple of lines to pad this since we have to have 10. The employees at the video store should have slapped me for bringing this title to the counter.",Negative "Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.

Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.

If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.",Negative "Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.

This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of ""The Highest Honor"" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story.",Positive "I would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ).

There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ).

For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.

For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.

I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.

In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique.",Positive "If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...

First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.

Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.

Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.

Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.

It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.",Negative "Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like ""You're my heart, you're my soul"" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of ""American Idol"" - especially his unforgettable comments.

This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned ""Idol"" TV show called ""Deutschland sucht den Superstar"" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is ""Dieter - der Film""

I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.

It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the ""friendly"" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper ""BILD"" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show ""Wetten dass... ?"" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.

Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.

Therefore: 2/10",Negative "ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.",Negative "I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in ""Anne Frank"" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did!",Positive "Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.",Positive "Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you.

Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once.

2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.",Negative "My Super X-Girlfriend is one hell of a roller coaster ride. The special effects were excellent and the costumes Uma Thurman wore were hubba buba. Uma Thurman is an underrated comedic actress but she proved everyone wrong and nailed her role as the lunatic girlfriend. She was just simply FABULOUS!!! Luke Wilson was also good as the average Joe but he was a brave man to work with one of the greatest actresses of all time. The supporting cast was also superb especially Anna Faris who was extremely good (A lot better than in the Scary Movie franchise).

Ivan Rietman did very well in directing this film because if it wasn't for him and Uma Thurman this film wouldn't have done so well. This film is clearly a 10/10 for it's cast (Uma Thurman), it's director, it's screenplay and from it's original plot line. This film is very highly recommended.",Positive "Years have gone by since Don Wilson used his martial arts expertise to take down a robot who was programmed to destroy him, he's also married to the blonde reporter (Stacie Foster) who led the rebellion in the first film, now a new conspiracy is in the works, one that involves look-alike droids who frame our two heroes, and a corporation looking to rule the world (There is no plot to back any of this up) and Cyber Tracker 2 becomes a virtual replay of the first movie. I admit that I have bought DVDs from the bargain bin that were made by PM, PM was a company that specialized in cheap-jack action flicks (like this) which had tons of explosions, little story and overall nothing but mean edged action. Some of these titles have been (mildly) enjoyable (Last Man Standing and The Sweeper) however Cyber Tracker 2 is stuck with the casting of the charisma-less Don Wilson. When comparing the protagonists of similar PM efforts both Jeff Wincott and C. Thomas Howell are Oscar nominees when compared to Don Wilson. Another telling sign is that this was directed by Richard Pepin who has none of the flair Joseph Merhi seems to have in crafting action sequences that feel much more expensive than their budgets. Then again though both C. Thomas and Wincott are probably more expensive to obtain. Cyber Tracker 2 is a rip off with a capitol R, there are so many steals from better movies (Robocop, Terminator, Universal Soldier to even Halloween III!) that it's almost as if Richard Pepin is trying to infuse a sense of identity to the pedestrian material yet without the intelligent ideas or at least the mindless zip of great action, Cyber Tracker 2 falls flat. There is literally no good idea that isn't borrowed from a better movie and the supporting cast overact. The only exception comes from Tony Burton who is miles better than the material. Also Stacie Foster looks like she could be better with far better material. However Cyber Tracker 2 comes off mainly as noisy, bland and lackluster as its leading man, however with no real martial arts sequences to fall back on, all there is, is lots of cars tipping over and that alone is no substitute for the bankruptcy of ambition expressed here.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)",Negative "This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.

The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).

The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.

The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.

There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.

Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.

I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.",Negative "This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were ""I Left My Neck In San Francisco"", ""Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea"", ""The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly"" and ""When You Wish Upon A Star Creature"". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as ""Rocky Mountain YIIII!"" and ""The Ransom Of Scooby Chief"". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.",Positive "Deceptive Advertising... I saw a commercial for Carlitos Way: Rise to Power that states ""From the Producer of Scarface and Carlito's Way"" LETS GET IT STRAIGHT... Michael Bergman did not produce Scarface, in fact he was 'editing room assistant' for Scarface. Not to take away from Bergman's talent... but in my opinion he should of had a little more class. I think I can speak for the masses when I say... We hate being blatantly lied to. As far as the movie goes, It was poor at best. I did think Puff Daddy did a good job. Although, Luis Guzman should be ashamed for working on this film. Overall this film did not do a good job filling in the blanks for Carlito's Way. It's obvious this project was an attempt to make a quick buck rather a good film.",Negative "I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent ""Short History of Nearly Everything"" and what I was able to choke down in ""A Brief History of Time,"" it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually ""channelling"" some loony named ""Ramtha"" completely upset the applecart for me.

What a waste of two hours.",Negative "My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement.

The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.

Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.

The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as ""should have been a TV movie"", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.

All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.",Positive "It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any ""gray matters"" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.

The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.

Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.

Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role.

This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.",Negative "This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.

The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the ""action"" itself.

I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?

There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.

I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.",Negative "It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.

Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.

I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.

On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.

If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.

I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified.",Negative "Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own ""enlightened"" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever.",Positive "This is not only one of the greatest Jackie Chan films, but also one of the greatest kung-fu movies of all time.

We've come to expect crazy stunts, and fast, creative action in Chan's movies, and this one set the benchmark for others to follow. It's two hours of pure entertainment, that impresses all the way through.

As well as the superb action, we have a viable storyline and believable characters, with Chan taking what appears to be a more western approach to the writing, mixing eastern resolution methods (ie kicking ass).

Overall, it's funny, serious, entertaining and groundbreaking. A must for any kung-fu fan, whilst at the same time remaining accessible to the wider reaches of the film community.",Positive "Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band ""Cradle Of Filth"" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.

But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.

Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.

To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.

My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.",Negative "The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - ""Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of ""Brassed Off"" the models of ""Calendar Girls"" and the dancers of ""the Full Monty"". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable ""types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long – Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.",Positive "This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.",Positive "Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.

PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included.",Positive "While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.",Positive "Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)

At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.

The ""romance"" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than ""I'm a guy and you're a girl"", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole ""all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to"" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.

Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole ""the horrors of war"" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)",Negative "I gave this loooooooooooong film a ""2"" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about ""ACTING"" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose ""EX.""",Negative "I first watched this movie on its release in 1987 and was greatly affected emotionally, through a combination of guilt at what my fellow white human beings could do to innocent people and the reluctance of the outside world to really investigate these atrocities against man.

Particularly moving was the Funeral of Steve Biko, made even more vivid and hard-hitting by the South African Anthem played at the time. I have long believed that this movie achieved what nobody else had managed - to open the eyes of the world to what was really happening in South Africa. I consider myself to be a normal right thinking person and I can attest to how this film changed my whole way of thinking about not just South Africa, but how we as white people perceive black people. I have never seen any difference between people of any colour or creed, but after viewing this film I physically changed my life and have spent the last 17 years living in a predominantly black country and helping many people rise above their present standard of living and achieve that which they would not have thought possible. The greatest reward I can honestly say I have received - to be able to say that in my own small way I have contributed and redressed the balance a little. But if more people thought like me and actually DID something to help black people without seeking reward then the entire black population of this planet would be a little better off.

I challenge any right thinking person to watch Cry Freedom from beginning to end and not feel that emotion tugging at your heartstrings as you witness the 700 schoolchildren brutally shot dead in Sharpville for refusing to learn Afrikaans, the senseless murder of Steve Biko, such a champion for his own people's rights, and then, ultimately, to understand that all this is not merely a film, albeit a magnificent one, but that it all actually happened and less than 30 years ago.

Yes, my friends, watch this movie and then see if you can go out afterwards and party hard. I couldn't. I was too upset at knowing the truth. That is the hallmark of a great film. It was obviously the intention of Sir Richard Attenborough to get this message over about South Africa. Of course he has achieved it. Unless you happen to support apartheid. God help you.",Positive "WE FAW DOWN

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...

Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP.",Negative "When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.

SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been ""rescued"" from two years of ""captivity"" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname ""Soldier Blue,"" Cresta demonstrates that her years among the ""savages"" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.

During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again).

Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming.

What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of ""keeping the country clean,"" and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.

I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery.

But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing ""the most savage film in history."" If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its ""daring to tell it like it was,"" take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.",Negative "LOL!!! delirious was so funny.. i was in tears. Eddie Murphys impressions are absolutely spot on. The best impression was of James Brown and Mr T> SO FUNNY!! Its weird how Eddie Murphy was back then and how he is now DELIRIOUS is a must see but if u don't like foul language don't watch BUT AMAZING AND SO FUNNY.. i have seen it 6/7 times and still pee myself every time.. This is Eddie Murphy at his prime and you can see where he got the humour and ideas of movies such as nutty professor from. He does impressions of his family as well, which is real funny.

if only i was there...",Positive "The 700 Club gives a great perspective on world events. Some have described it as disingenuous or cheesy. I find the program to be informative and inspirational. It is only natural for many to throw mud on a program that has proved to be so successful. There are very few shows that can point to a 40 year track record of success in the world of television media and The 700 Club is one of them. While Mr. Robertson may have been wrong to say that someone should be assassinated, I find it curious that so many people will literally trip over themselves to hop on the bandwagon of criticism. I have certainly said some foolish things in my life. I would certainly be willing to forgive Mr. Robertson since he puts out a great show.",Positive "It was so terrible. It wasn't fun to watch at all. Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie. I say again, the scene where a girl is masturbating with a vibrator is not even fun to watch. Or maybe if that was the only part of the movie that you watched, just girl on couch using a vibrator. Maybe they should have just released that one scene in theaters, maybe then the movie would be enjoyable on a certain level. My advice, fast forward to that point, watch it, rewind the movie, watch it again, rewind, repeat. Maybe you could enjoy yourself for 2 hours that way. This movie ranks alongside I spit on your grave and Doom generation in the category of worst movies that I have ever seen.",Negative "DeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers!",Negative "This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine.

I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.

I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.

Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a ""suprise"" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.

Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit.

Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.

*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-",Negative "The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.",Negative "Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.",Negative "The plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than ""weird eyes"" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.

The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy ""medicine man"" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.

Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say ""looks like he was here"", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.

Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.

I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better movie.",Negative "Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.",Negative "Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.

WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, ""no surprises whatsoever"", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as ""... you can't keep a good dog down"", ""... let's make music forever"", and ""... welcome to being dead"" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!

WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.

OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)

Happy Viewing!",Positive "I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous!

The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.

I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!",Negative "In 1958, Clarksberg was a famous speed trap town. Much revenue was generated by the Sheriff's Department catching speeders. The ones who tried to outrun the Sheriff? Well, that gave the Sheriff a chance to push them off the Clarksberg Curve with his Plymouth cruiser. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a couple of servicemen on leave trying to get back to base on time are pushed off to their deaths, if I recall correctly. Then one day, a stranger drove into town. Possibly the coolest hot rodder in the world. Michael McCord. Even his name is a car name, as in McCord gaskets. In possibly the ultimate hot rod. A black flamed '34 Ford coupe. The colors of death, evil and hellfire. He gets picked up for speeding by the Sheriff on purpose. He checks out the lay of the land. He is the brother of one of the Sheriff's victims. He knows how his brother died. The Clarksberg government is all in favor of the Sheriff. There's only one way to get justice served for the killing of his brother and to fix things so ""this ain't a-ever gonna happen again to anyone"": recreate the chase and settle the contest hot-rodder style to the death. He goes out to the Curve and practices. The Sheriff knows McCord knows. The race begins... This is a movie to be remembered by anyone who ever tried to master maneuvering on a certain stretch of road.",Positive "By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen.

First, the story was ""moved outside,"" so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story.

Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused!

The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great ""cattle call"" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.",Negative "let me say that i love Adam Sandler, watching reign over me i was paying close attention to his acting

when he raises his voice, i cant help but think of happy gilmore yelling at a golf ball, then i snap back as Adam Sandler sucks me in

Reign over Me is a great film, a film that comes off slow at first with you expecting emotion in every scene

Don Cheadle always does a great job and is no exception here with some truly great lines and is worthy of an Oscar in any movie he does

adam sandler was amazing in so many ways not only was this his most dramatic/best acted film of his career. but i can recall laughing out loud at many parts of this film

The supporting cast was great also with Saffron Burroughs and Jada Pinkett Smith

I would highly recommend this movie its got tremendous acting beautiful shots of NYC great comedy great drama And a new found respect for Adam sandler if you ever doubted him or a reassurance at how great Don Cheadle is",Positive "I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't.",Negative "Greetings again from the darkness. Mary Heron is amassing quite the list of films which provide a glimpse into their specific era. Her previous ""I Shot Andy Warhol"" and ""American Psycho"" were at their best when commenting on the quirkiness of society during that period. Although ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is obviously about Ms. Page, it is every bit as much a peak behind the curtain at the world of kinky photo shoots in the 50's.

The film is fun to watch both from the perspective of the story and the technical aspect of the way it was filmed and put together. The grainy B&W film and photos capture the time and the introduction of color in Miami Beach through the photos of Bunny Yeager is very well done.

The supporting cast is strong with David Strathairn (fresh off his Edward R. Murrow role), Chris Bauer (as Irving Klaw) and Lili Taylor. The star of the film is the wonderfully talented and underrated and underworked Gretchen Mol. Ms. Mol always brings an edge and spirit to her roles. She was absolutely mesmerizing in the little seen, Jason Alexander directed ""Just Looking"" in 2000. Here she is the notorious Bettie Page. Her smile is captivating and her body is flawless. She really seems to enjoy this role and helps us understand how the girl next door from Tennessee could become the underworld Pin-up queen.

As one would expect, the soundtrack from the era is terrific. Patsy Cline and Peggy Lee are just two of the featured performers. Although the film hints at providing a history into this industry, the final third kinda falls flat preventing pure movie magic. But the magic of Gretchen Mol and Bettie Page make this a fun movie to watch and one that will yield endless showings on HBO in the near future. Now will someone please turn Ms. Mol into the star she should be?",Positive "Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat.",Positive "Sure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise...",Negative "Our imp of the perverse did good his first time out, thats for sure. The music is the best you may ever hear by any human, but you already know that, unless you have no taste or have a brain that is too small to understand greatness. A poor script that doesn't flesh out much of a story, but at least it has its moments. the breathtaking concert stuff is worth seeing it. He deserved an Oscar for this s**t, even though he was at times an ego driven twit, with his towering bodyguard Chick Huntsbery always in front. A movie that made non-fans fans, Take it or leave it. Prince does need to stay clear of acting in the future though. He takes himself way to serious. He is a genius musician, but pleaseee..Just enjoy the ride, my purple maestro..Peace.",Positive "One star for the ""plot"". One star for the acting. One star for the dubbing into squeaky-voiced American. Five stars for Monica Broeke and Inge Maria Granzow, with their propensity for taking all their clothes off. And ten out of ten for the divine Emmanuelle Béart, two years before she made 'Manon des sources'. Béart also undresses a couple of times, but even fully-clothed her presence is enough to make this film eminently watchable. Watch out for the scene where she tells her friend about the three ""first times"" for a girl. It's corny, but still far more erotic than the rather laughably choreographed ""love scenes"" featuring Broeke, Granzow and Patrick Bauchau. Incidentally, the cinematography is not great; the stills for the closing credits are a better indication of what David Hamilton is capable of.",Negative "A famous conductor decides after a heart attack to go back to the village where he was born to live a quiet life. There, he comes in Dutch with the local church choir, that will change his life.

I had no expectations when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday; I like watching foreign movies that are not English, and I've already seen a couple of Swedish movies in my life, but this one was the best so far.

Where to start? In my opinion, this film is a jewel, thanks to many things, of which one is the outstanding acting. Michael Nyqvist is perfect as the thoughtful, almost shy and devoted conductor Daniel Daréus. Beautiful Frida Hallgren is enchanting with her pretty smile and her subtle acting. The choir members are all well-developed, interesting characters with their own story each.

This movie tells a story, a beautiful story, about music, love, pain, memories, death, about a man who devoted his life to music, and who tries to create a calm existence in the village where he was born, while trying to make peace with the past and with the way his life has been till then. Kay Pollack shows us that the Swedish are outstanding movie creators. Go see Så som i himmelen, it's a movie that makes you think about life and love, and that's also comforting, in some way.",Positive "I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:

1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.

2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays.

3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.

4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.

Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's ""take myself too seriously"" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.

Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly.",Negative "> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.",Negative "This movie is another fine example of what Jerry Bruckheimer, since about 1997, seems to be best at--hyping up a movie a year before its release and not coming through with a quality movie. I'm no film critic, but this movie was as predictable as they come. Every attempt at a joke, every attempt at a touching moment, and the pitiful attempt at a love story, was exactly what I was predicting in my mind. Do yourself a favor and save your money on this one.",Negative "From the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.

If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?

A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.

According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away.",Negative "Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.",Negative "A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it!

The plot just barely dodges being called ""corny"". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.

So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy.",Positive "I got hooked on this as apparently ABC has licensed this show to Pearl TV in Hong Kong. It caught be my surprise, as it was a break from listening to anything Chinese. But i started getting reeled in, as the cast and the story lines are just NYC enough and thoughtful. Nothing too unbelievable, though I think it's very very stereotypical of them to write Damien as a potential black man with a sheet!!!! That has been the most disappointing aspect. The rest is great and I'm sad to learn on IMDb that i can't look forward to watching season 2 when i get back to the US. I'm am just as disappointed as the other commentators that this showed much promise and quality and taste. But just as shows that show characters getting closer, it's probably harder for people to watch if the start watching several episodes in. Which is apparently a bit too late for the eager networks.",Positive "Me and my sister rented this movie because we were in the mood for something trashy and not so demanding to watch. However the movie greatly exceeded my very low expectations.

It is so much more than just a representation of a century. It has very real portrayals of the characters within it and most of the actors do an amazing job. The different stories are baked together with actual footage from the time that gives it a very unique touch. While watching it I really felt that I CARED about what happened to the characters.

I would also like to give endless amounts of praise to Julia Stiles in her portrayal of Katie, she was great in a way that stood out!

I would recommend this movie to anyone..",Positive "DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.

The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.

Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.

DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.

BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.

Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.

Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone.",Positive "This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.

In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to.",Positive "I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.",Negative "When it comes to the erotic genre, I'm lucky to get through the first 20 minutes of the plot without getting up or looking for something else to watch. This movie is different. Julie Davis (I love You Don't Touch Me) directed two very strong lead actors Kira Reed and Doug Jeffery in this enthralling thriller. Kira is convincing as ""Kim"" a sweet innocent romance novelist that gets caught in the web of seduction of Doug Jeffery's ""The Man"" a handsome stranger. Kira loses control of her inhibitions in the role, and as actress, giving what could have been simply another T and A depth and believability. I believe it to be her best performance yet. And Julie Davis' direction is a great gift to erotica.",Positive "This is the finest film ever made to deal with the subject of AIDS. It's a documentary about two men living with and dying of this illness. The film is beautiful, heartbreaking, funny, and incredibly moving. Above all, it is an amazing true love story. Be sure to have a few hankies ready before you watch this movie---you will need them. Extraordinary.",Positive "I'm not a regular viewer of Springer's, but I do watch his show in glimpses and I think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. So naturally, I'm going to watch this movie expecting to see ""Jerry Springer Uncensored."" First of all, Jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film's running time. The other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo-farce about trailer-trash, jealousy, incest and deception. Jaime Pressley (who looks hot as HELLLL) is a trailer-trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual-looking, chain-smoking, drunken Michael Dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). The mom finds out about the affair, they get into a fight, they want to take it to the ""Jerry"" show (that's right, no Springer). And then we have a parallel story with an African-American couple. They take it to the ""Jerry"" show. The characters collide. Blah, blah, freakin' blah! Trash has rarely been this BORRRINGG!!!! I was wondering why the hell Springer has millions of fans, yet none of them checked out his movie. Well, now it's TOTALLY obvious!! Whether you love him or hate him, you will hate this movie! How can I explain? It's a total mess of a motion picture (if that's what you call it). It's so badly edited, with scenes that just don't connect, and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it's simply all over the map! Just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. With seldom laughs.

My only positive note is a hot girl-girl scene. That's as risque as it gets. Don't get me wrong, the scene's pretty risque, but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on Springer's program--this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized.

My score: 3 (out of 10)",Negative "A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their ""businesses"" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines",Positive "Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.",Negative "I can't decide whether this is one of my favourite movies. It is a good thriller and has an emotional core but still I can't decide. I definitely liked it. This is the first movie of Terry Gilliam that I have seen. My first impression? I was engaged till the very end and it is not all that complex(to be confusing).

The movie is set in the future. A man James Cole(Bruce Willis) is sent from the future in order to get some information from the past(1996 to be specific). A virus killed 5 billion people. He is sent from the future to get some information about it. Also involved here are a psychiatrist called Kathryn Railly. The love story is portrayed beautifully and you can really feel the longing in this love and longing for a regular life. The loose ends are tied up in a very interesting manner at the end.

One thing I liked about this movie is that unlike other post-apocalyptic movies, the movie didn't prefer to give any boring social commentary and instead focused on this one guy and his longing for a regular life. ""You want to see the ocean, be with her"" is especially a poignant line in this movie. It chooses to focus on the tension and confusion in the person's mind. Therefore this is not exactly post apocalyptic movie but instead it could be described as a romantic sci fi movie with themes that range from time travel to blurred realities and so on. This is what makes this movie a special movie of the 1990's. The complex plot flows smoothly without adding too many characters.

The performances are quite good. Bruce willis surprised me here as he didn't act the regular tough guy here but he gave a good performance of a confused man who is in love. His desperation in certain sequences is portrayed beautifully. I have to check out his other movies. The gorgeous Madeleine Stowe is quite a treat to watch. EVer since I saw this movie, I have become so obsessed with her. She has given a great performance of a woman who sympathises with her patient and finally falls in love with him. Brad Pitt is the real surprise though with his portrayal of a crazy man named Jeffrey Goines. His Oscar nominated performance is quite surprising considering that he doesn't have many critics who have kind words for him.

The end is quite chilling and that is also another reason to watch the movie. The length or complexity is not as big a problem because this film is quite fast moving and there are enough incidents to keep people interested. And every incident in this movie has a meaning and nothing is there that is unnecessary.

Good thriller 10/10",Positive "Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.

Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10",Negative "For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky (""Snatch,"" ""Sexy Beast,"" etc.). It's not wild like ""Snatch"" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian ""mail order bride"" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.",Positive """Rock 'n' Roll High School"" will probably have to go down in history as the ultimate rebellious party flick. Portraying a bunch of high school students using the Ramones' music as inspiration to rise up against their despotic principal (Mary Woronov, of ""Eating Raoul"" fame), the whole movie is a mile a minute. It's basically a big excuse to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. Bullied freshmen? Check. A dorky music teacher (Paul Bartel, also from ""Eating Raoul""*)? Check. Exploding mice? Checkmate.

Anyway, this is the sort of stuff that makes life worth living. Even for someone like me who doesn't know the Ramones' music, it's pure pleasure. With Roger Corman executive producing and Joe Dante co-directing, how could we expect anything less? Too bad that director Allan Arkush later degenerated into fare such as ""Caddyshack II"".

Also starring P.J. Soles, Vincent Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Dick Miller (who has appeared in every one of Joe Dante's movies, and many of Roger Corman's), Don Steele, and of course the Ramones. A real treat.

*It seems like Bartel and Woronov always co-starred. They also co-starred in Joe Dante's ""Hollywood Boulevard"" and the slasher flick ""Chopping Mall"" (also starring Dick Miller)...in which they reprised their roles from ""Eating Raoul"".",Positive "I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that ""Zombi 3"" (aka. ""Zombie Flesh Eaters 2"") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic ""Zombi 2"" (aka. ""Zombie Felsh Eaters""/""Zombie"") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor ""Zombi 2"" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch ""Zombi 3"". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's ""Porno Holocaust""), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful ""Troll 2"". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!",Negative "Director / writer Michael Winner's feature is a better than expected offbeat supernatural horror film (although still schlock efficiently catered for), which really does by go unnoticed. Sure it might borrow ideas from other similar themed horror movies of this period, but still manages to bring its own psychological imprint to the smokescreen material (of good vs. evil) and a unique vision that has a fair share of impressively expansive, if somewhat exploitative set-pieces. As a whole it's sketchy, however remains intriguing by instilling an ominous charge without going gang-busters with the scares. Actually there's always something going on amongst its busy framework, but it's rather down-played with its shocks steering to soapy patterns and atmospheric tailoring, up until its vividly repellent and grisly climax with a downbeat revelation. Winner's dressed up craftsmanship might feel pedestrian, however it's the ensemble cast that really holds it together… as you try to spot the faces. There's plenty too. Some having more to do with the scheme of things than others, but there's no doubts every one of them are committed, despite the ludicrously crude nature of it all. It's interesting to see names like Sylvia Miles (who's significantly creepy!), Beverly D'Angelo (likewise), Deborah Raffin, Eli Wallach, Christopher Walken, William Hickey (a neat cameo), Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach and Tom Berenger in bit parts. Then you got a mild-mannered Chris Sarandon and movingly gorgeous Cristina Raines in the leads. Offering able support José Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith and Arthur Kennedy. The script does throw around many characters, as well as notions but gets disjointedly sidetrack by trying to squeeze all of it in. However it's disorienting air works in its favour in establishing the suspicion and deception of what's really going on here. Is there a reason for all of this, and why is it surrounding Raines' character? The emphasis is mainly built upon that moody angle, as it begins to slowly shed light of her inner goings and that of the strange/worrying experiences she encounters when she's moves into her new apartment. This is where Winner tries to pull out the eerie shades, which projects some icy moments. Gil Melle was the man responsible for the grand, overpowering orchestral score that never misses a cue and Richard C. Kratina instruments the sweeping, scope-like photography.",Positive The Only Kung Fu Epic worth watching. The best training ever. The main character spending a hundred day's on his knees outside the shaolin temple show how desperate he is to learn kung fu to fight the manchu dogs who have taken over china.,Positive "This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two ""heroes"" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.

Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His ""crying"" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.

The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The ""effects"" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.

This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.",Negative "Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.",Positive "I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake!

4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name!",Negative "This is a good family show with a great cast of actors. It's a nice break from the reality show blitz of late. There is nothing else quite like it on television right now either, unless you count Joan of Arcadia as being similar because it has a teen lead character too. Anyway, Clubhouse is worth a look because Jeremy Sumpter gives the main character (Pete Young) a kind of likability and naiveté that is appealing without being overly sweet and cuddly. Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham and Kirsten Storms round out the rest of the main cast members, and each is terrific in their role. I really like Kirsten Storms as Pete's sister Betsy; she is quite a pill, but she still cares about her mom and brother, even though she hates to show it. It may take a few episodes to really find it's legs, but Clubhouse is easily one of the best shows to come along in a good long while, so check it out people--you'll be glad you did!",Positive "This game is fun and it has a plot that you could actually expect to see in the comics. Spider-man has been framed by a mysterious impostor. The city is being overrun by a strange gas, and symbiotes like those of Venom and Carnage are appearing all over the city. Who is behind these crimes? Could it be Doc Ock? Well he seems to have turned over a new leaf. Venom also does not seem to be involved as he is just ticked off that Spider-man has apparently cost him a rather good photo opportunity. Well cameos from other heroes and lots of villains later Spidey will unravel the mystery. The fighting is basic, not to hard to pick up, the fights with the bosses are rather fun. You get to collect comics, you run out of web and it is somewhat fun traversing the city. However, that is also a weak point. The swinging is not all that great as all you do is hover through the city as Spider-man seemingly attachés his webs to the sky. You also do not have much maneuverability web-slinging either especially compared to a say Spider-man 2 movie video game. Still, it makes up for the rather bad swinging with the other elements especially the story. So be prepared to see Scorpion, Rhino, Venom, Mysterio, Doctor Octopus, and Carnage for one wild action packed ride.",Positive "I saw Insomniac's Nightmare not to long ago for the first time and I have to say, I really found it to be quite good. If you are a fan of Dominic Monaghan you will love it. The hole movie takes place inside his mind -or does it? The acting from everyone else is a little rushed and shaky and some of the scenes could be cut down but it works out in the end. The extras on the DVD are just as great as the film, if not greater for those Dom fans. It has tons of candid moments from the set, outtakes and a great interview with the director. Anyone who has gone through making an independent film will love to watch Tess (the director), Dom and everyone else on the very small close personal set try to bang out this little trippy creepy film. It was pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to have it in my collection.",Positive David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film,Positive I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its humor and pathos. I especially like the way the characters welcomed Gina's various suitors. With friends (and family) like these anyone would feel nurtured and loved. I found the writing witty and natural and the actors made the material come alive.,Positive "My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:

1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.

Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.

News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.

DO NOT WATCH",Negative "Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time.",Negative "It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In ""Yankee Doodle Dandy"" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially ""Shanghai Lil."" And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch.",Positive "I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.

The American cop has a German accent! The ""police station"" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign ""Police Station"" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.

This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening!

The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review.

Absolutely WORTHLESS.",Negative "Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.",Negative "I have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.

She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.

The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) played a super part here.

Mary Harron (American Psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever.",Negative "Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.

Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring.

Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.

One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.

A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime.

And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.",Negative "Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the ""classic"" 50s ""alien invasion"" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail (""Casino Royale"", ""Our Man Flint"" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)",Negative "One of the most interesting movies to be classified as ""blaxploitation,"" Bakshi's ""Coonskin"" is a rich text full of wonderful insight. He wrote it in collaboration with Scat Man Crothers and Barry White, who appear in the film as well. The racist imagery can often be disturbing, but the message of the movie was so powerful that the NAACP gave it an endorsement (but only grudgingly).

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in an examination of the pervading atmosphere of racism that Bakshi attempts to deconstruct. Wonderful stuff.",Positive "Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.",Negative This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.

LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage!,Negative "It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.",Negative "I really liked this movie because I have a husband just like the guy in this movie. This movie is about Lindsey who meets Ben in the middle of winter when baseball season isn't in. She falls in love but when spring comes along, she gets the shock of her life when she is placed one step lower on her pedestal that Ben has put her on.

It's a funny movie with all of the baseball obsession that Ben has. He can't part from what he loves the most, that's what makes it so funny and why so many women can relate to Lindsey in real life. Also the people he sits with at the baseball games are just as obsessed as he is.

It's a funny movie and you won't strike out if you rent this one.",Positive "The movie is a total crap. We have two good actors who are miscast and a meat-head of an actor Salman Khan just to attract the female audience. The story is a crap. The characters poorly sketched. Non existent story telling. No editing to speak of. Ajay Devgan as a Rock Star..that is a dream in itself. The movie drags along to the point of decadence. The whole charade about Arjun bringing his Manna to London, let him grope his girlfriend and let him not play at Wembley (Vimbley in the dubbing process) is absurd. Salman Khan's over the top acting or faking is too painful to watch. I remember seeing some good movies from this Producer Vipul Shah but this is not one of them. It seems all the good directors are falling prey to the Box Office mania..that the Mumbai Media Morons have created. This is yet another crap movie in the lines of ""Wanted"" with idiot actor like Salman Khan who has no place in a Good Hindi Cinema. He is good to the Indian Cinema as Titanic was to the Winter Cruise Business. On a positive note-I like Asin character dancing Bharatnatyam when she changes to the Western style dancing when the teacher is not looking.",Negative "Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.",Negative "Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.

Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.

The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number.",Negative "Okay I must say that before the revealing of the 'monster'. saying that he really didn't fit into that category, just some weird thing that had an annoying screech! And personally I think a granny could have ran away from that thing, but anyway. I actually was getting into this film, although having the main character a drunk and a heroine addict didn't come as an appeal. But such scenes as when she runs away from the train, and you can see the figure at the door was kind of creepy, also where the guard had just been killed and the 'monster' put his hand on the screen.

But then disaster stuck form the moment the monster was revealed it just became your average horror, with limited thrills or scares. Slowly I became more bored, and wanted to shut the thing off. I like most people have said was rooting for the homeless people to make it, specially the guy, he gave me a few cheap laughs here and there. I think this film could have really been something special instead it became what every other horror nowadays are! Just boring and well not worth the money.

if you are looking for a cheap scare here and there, or a mindless gore fest (which is limited, hardly any in fact) by all means give it a go, but for all you serious horror watchers look somewhere else, much better films out there.",Negative "86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.

I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.

Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.

As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.

Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.

On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.",Negative "I am embarrassed to say that I missed ""The Mother"" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films.",Positive "It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit.",Positive "Let's keep it simple: My two kids were glued to this movie. It has its flaws from an adult perspective, but buy some jelly-worms and just enjoy it.

And the Pepsi girl was excellent!

And Kimberly Williams was pretty gosh-darned hot, although she's not in the film very much, so don't get too excited there.

Not that's it's really a bad thing, but it is the kind of movie you watch just once. Don't buy the DVD.

Enjoy!

Did I mention Kimberly Williams? (That was for the dads.)",Positive "Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.

Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.

One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.

That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video!",Positive "The Life and Time of Little Richard, as told by Little Richard, as produced and directed by Little Richard, was about as one sided as one of his songs. This is not a biography or even a docudrama, but does have good writing, great energy and an outstanding leading actor playing Richard. All the music is by Little Richard, so it rocks a tight lipsync on every song.

The movie covers his early childhood, carrys thru the formative years in music, the wild success and Richard's throwing it all away to praise the Lord. Its all tied together well and the obvious comeback in 1962 manages to stay away from the idea that Little Richard discovered the Beatles, whom opened for him.

My main objection is that his outrageous, counter cultural behavior is underplayed and you get no feel for how his audience experienced him at that time. Some of his energy, which he still has, does not come across full force. He seemed tame, compared to what I remember of him at the time.

The best scenes are Richard getting jilted by Lucille and writing a song about it and the strip to bikini shorts while performing, to make the point about not having a decent place to change.

If they had gotten into the ""Bronze Liberace"" as Richard use to refer to himself in interviews, then there's a story. Trust me I just saw him perform a couple of months ago and he still flirts with the pretty white boys, giving the one particularly good dancer in the audience, his headband. Nearly 68 and still going strong I recommend this movie and any concert or T.V. appearance you can find. Little Richard is always on",Positive "Some gorehound-friends recommended ""Live Feed"" to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models ""Hostel"" and ""Saw"") with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. ""Live Feed"" is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch!",Negative "Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...

Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever.",Negative "Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...

If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a ""serious"" superhero movie but at least its entertaining.",Negative "Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.",Negative "JAMES STEWART plays an FBI agent who began working with the agency before it was called the FBI and the story involves dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, the Prohibition Era gangsters, World War II German and Japanese spies, etc. A continuously interesting picture covering 40 years of history; far superior to any films being made these days.

Of special interest to older viewers familiar with Washington, DC. In a scene about 20 minutes into the movie --- where James Stewart finds out from Vera Miles that she's expecting their first child --- the scene was filmed in Herzog's Seafood Restaurant on the former Washington waterfront, the only movie in which this historic location appears. Shortly after taking office, President Kennedy decided that Southwest Washington, a 99% Black neighborhood, was an eyesore and ought to be torn down. By decree befitting his position of undisputed royalty, the entire area, including the popular waterfront restaurant district, but excluding 3 historic churches; was reduced to rubble. Black residents evicted from their homes relocated as best they could, and without Federal assistance; likewise businesses were simply put out of business, few re-locating. Restaurant Row was converted into a sidewalk, and Washington had no waterfront (restaurants, seafood stands, boats, etc) for about 10 years. As a lifetime resident, the Herzog Restaurant scene was our #1 reason to see this fine movie again.",Positive "I had the TV on for a white noise companion and heard"" $400 for a fully furnished apartment"" So I ran into the TV room expecting another 70's flick and got much more. Luckily, I could rewind to the beginning (DVR buffer) and hit the record button to watch it entirely.(Cinemax uncut and in HD no less!) Aside from some holes in the story and intermittent improbable dialog/events, this is an effective thriller worthy of your time to watch. Pretty creepy and progressive at times: Beverly D'Angelo's character masturbates in front of Alison Parker, played adroitly by Cristina Raines, Parker stabs, in very gory fashion, her father, an explicit menage a trios scene.( don't let the kids watch) The film is TOTALLY 70's full of bad clothes(polyester suits and tacky ascots) and decor, bad hair,over bloated music score, and familiar looking cinematography. The cast is excellent, take a second on this film's home page to check it out.It was a surprise to see Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach and Jeff Goldblum so young. Sylvia Miles- always wonderfully creepy! ENJOY!",Positive A really great movie and true story. Dan Jansen the Greatest skater ever. A touching and beautiful movie the whole family can enjoy. The story of Jane Jansens battle with cancer and Dan Jansen love for his sister. Of a important promise made by Jansen to win a gold medal to prove his sister Jane was right to believe in his talent in speed skating was justified. This picture is well worth the time. I wish they would make more films of this quality. Thank you for a great film with excellent actors and an excellent story. It is a very touching story about a beautiful family support and faith for their children and a special dream for their youngest son and his sister.,Positive "From the Q & A before and after, this is what I could gather: Some Irish guy wants to make a movie. Nothing in particular, just any movie. So, one night at a party, he hears some ex-roadie tell him a classic bit of rock n' roll lore; the one about how Gram Parsons' corpse was stolen from LAX by his loyal roadie so he could honor Parsons' wishes that he be cremated out in JoshuaTree. Wow!

What a great idea for a movie! Rock n' Roll (well, country), grave robbing, escapes, friendship, the 70's! I guess we could get Johnny Knoxville from ""Jackass"", cause it's kind of a prank, right, and Knoxville wants to do ""a movie"" too. Why he must have thought he had the next ""Snatch"" on his hand!

But this story's not really that exciting...we need something for Knoxville to struggle against.like a psychotic girlfirend after his money! But Parsons' was married at the time. That's O.K., no one knows that. Besides we could get Christina Applegate. But what if the audience doesn't like the idea of stealing a corpse.well, we'll get his dad to join the chase, but give permission in the end. But Parsons' dad killed himself when he was 10, in fact his orphan status, and tragic childhood, are key parts of the Parsons Mythology. Mythology? We're making ""A Movie!"" This is creative problem solving.

It's an uncomfortable experience for anybody even vaguely knowledgeable on or interested in the subject. Applegate's presence is doubling jarring. First her invented character is a Beverly Hills bitch before her time -she might as well have walked around the whole movie a cell phone in her hand, and secondly, what kind of man would Parsons be if he ever associated himself with that kind of harpy? Facts aren't just distorted or left out, but REVERSED. They could have easily found the villain they wanted in Parsons STEPfather, who was attempting to whisk the body back to his home state where law would favor him in dividing up the considerable inheritance.

And the music, oh, the music I love. The music is hacked up (the bridge of a song here, the chorus there), forced to the background, and in the end, horribly covered by the hippest new indie band, Starsailor. My girlfriend asked the unnecessary, but irresistable question after the movie --was anyone up there, the writer, the producers, the director, actually a Gram Parson's fan? Well, no. He'd never actually heard of Gram Parsons, but of course, blah blah blah, I learned to love it, and here's some factoids I read in a bio online. Another guy vouched for Parsons' coolness by saying he and Keith Richards tripped on acid together and wrote ""Wild Horses"" together, a mixed up bunch of facts as off-base as the movie. Another person asked, wasn't it morally questionable to rewrite history when most people would only know about it from this film? Well, he had the real roadie's permission (he was even set) and the Parsons estate gave permission, and all these other people who got paychecks said it was great.

But what I really wondered was, and asked in the embarassingly trembling voice of a truly impassioned Parsons geek, was, if the movie's so cheaply made (a million), had they not considered the original Gram Parsons fanbase as an audience? The director and writer seemed to think he was a nothing figure with no fanbase, though I doubt any Mojo magazine reading, country-rock 70's music fan would agree. But a bunch of Brits made it I guess, and they just didn't care about Cosmic American Music, or even knew it existed. This isn't just not a truthful Parsons flick, it's not even in the right spirit -it doesn't even fit the legend. At the very least it should have had the sentimentality of one of his songs. And plenty of people would love to be told.

I should mention the movie was received well from the bunch of stoned college kids, just off the slopes, and into Johnny Knoxville. But if you're a Parsons fan ignore the title, it's just a movie for Jackass fans.",Negative "I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre!",Positive "it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.

it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.",Positive """National Treasure"" (2004) is a thoroughly misguided hodge-podge of plot entanglements that borrow from nearly every cloak and dagger government conspiracy cliché that has ever been written. The film stars Nicholas Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates (how precious is that, I ask you?); a seemingly normal fellow who, for no other reason than being of a lineage of like-minded misguided fortune hunters, decides to steal a 'national treasure' that has been hidden by the United States founding fathers. After a bit of subtext and background that plays laughably (unintentionally) like Indiana Jones meets The Patriot, the film degenerates into one misguided whimsy after another – attempting to create a 'Stanley Goodspeed' regurgitation of Nicholas Cage and launch the whole convoluted mess forward with a series of high octane, but disconnected misadventures.

The relevancy and logic to having George Washington and his motley crew of patriots burying a king's ransom someplace on native soil, and then, going through the meticulous plan of leaving clues scattered throughout U.S. currency art work, is something that director Jon Turteltaub never quite gets around to explaining. Couldn't Washington found better usage for such wealth during the start up of the country? Hence, we are left with a mystery built on top of an enigma that is already on shaky ground by the time Ben appoints himself the new custodian of this untold wealth. Ben's intentions are noble – if confusing. He's set on protecting the treasure. For who and when?…your guess is as good as mine.

But there are a few problems with Ben's crusade. First up, his friend, Ian Holmes (Sean Bean) decides that he can't wait for Ben to make up his mind about stealing the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives (oh, yeah – brilliant idea!). Presumably, the back of that famous document holds the secret answer to the ultimate fortune. So Ian tries to kill Ben. The assassination attempt is, of course, unsuccessful, if overly melodramatic. It also affords Ben the opportunity to pick up, and pick on, the very sultry curator of the archives, Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger). She thinks Ben is clearly a nut – at least at the beginning. But true to action/romance form, Abby's resolve melts quicker than you can say, ""is that the Hope Diamond?"" The film moves into full X-File-ish mode, as the FBI, mistakenly believing that Ben is behind the theft, retaliate in various benign ways that lead to a multi-layering of action sequences reminiscent of Mission Impossible meets The Fugitive. Honestly, don't those guys ever get 'intelligence' information that is correct? In the final analysis, ""National Treasure"" isn't great film making, so much as it's a patchwork rehash of tired old bits from other movies, woven together from scraps, the likes of which would make IL' Betsy Ross blush.

The Buena Vista DVD delivers a far more generous treatment than this film is deserving of. The anamorphic widescreen picture exhibits a very smooth and finely detailed image with very rich colors, natural flesh tones, solid blacks and clean whites. The stylized image is also free of blemishes and digital enhancements. The audio is 5.1 and delivers a nice sonic boom to your side and rear speakers with intensity and realism. Extras include a host of promotional junket material that is rather deep and over the top in its explanation of how and why this film was made. If only, as an audience, we had had more clarification as to why Ben and co. were chasing after an illusive treasure, this might have been one good flick. Extras conclude with the theatrical trailer, audio commentary and deleted scenes. Not for the faint-hearted – just the thick-headed.",Negative "Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)""Feast of the Dead"" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the ""evil breeder"" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.

Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.",Negative "This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.",Negative "Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.

And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..

I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)",Negative "Spoilers.....

I saw the original on TV sometime ago and remembered this production as less gripping than most Beeb costume drama. I rewatched on DVD this week and still have the same impression of it. It's a good story at first, but weakens when the heroine becomes oh so terribly brave and noble and returns to her utterly vile husband when he's ill and I got so totally irritated with her saintliness. I suppose this was the ""right thing to do"" when the story was written as well as contributing plenty of angst, and it was difficult for a woman to be independent of her husband as marriage made her no more than his possession, let alone to carry on scandalously with a lover as I expect a lot of the modern audience would have liked to see. But it's hard to take the santimoniousness nowadays and especially when this heroine had a strong, brave admirer ready to defend her against anyone and everyone. So re the story as in the film I'm equivocal. It's well done as per the novel, but somewhat irritating as per today's kind of life.

Steadfast hero Gilbert was certainly a saint to put up with his ladylove's variable and often cryptic behaviour and persistent self-denial and to be so consistently supportive. So I felt it a great shame that when Helen was at long last free to be with him, the script didn't allow him a bit more than about one minute to fall on each other for a quick hug before the titles came up. This was completely ridiculous when we'd been waiting all this time through all that dripping sentiment over the undeserving husband for a decent bit of dialogue and a good embrace between hero and heroine. Instead, the ending was as though the film makers had run out of time or finance or just couldn't be bothered. ""Here you are - one minute, do what you can in that, then cut as the director wants to go home now....."" I was left feeling totally dissasatisfied.

However, very high commendations to the acting of Toby Stephens a perfect and very handsome hero, and Rupert Graves a superbly nasty and self-pitying villain. Tara Fitzgerald was satisfactory within the confines of the script that forced her to be a depressing and rather sanctimonious victim so much of the time.

That said, I love these classic dramas and virtually all of them are a sight better than much of the ""modern"" drama on TV these days. So 7 stars because in spite of the irritations it's still a good watch.",Positive "This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.",Negative "This was the second entry in the regular Columbo series, and it holds up well today. As I am able to look at it closely now on DVD and see how it is constructed, I am very impressed with the direction of Bernard L. Kowalski (who directed the fine MACHO CALLAHAN as well as countless TV episodes)--watch how the post-murder actions of the killer are shown on a split-screen effect on his two eyeglasses, watch how the murder itself is shown in montage fashion, watch the point-of-view shot from the perspective of the corpse. Also, the wild but impressive avant-garde musical score from noted jazzman Gil Melle was incredible and helped so much to create atmosphere. And the supporting performance of Brett Halsey as the golf pro was wonderful--such subtlety and complexity in a role that nine out of ten times would be a one-dimensional cutout. The ""formula"" had not yet been set when this episode was filmed, so there are still some surprises in Columbo's methods. Of course, Falk, Robert Culp, and Ray Milland are the highest-quality actors and it's a pleasure to see them work--all men are familiar from many other roles yet lose themselves in their characters here. In all, this entry in the Columbo series--and MANY of the others--are as well-crafted as a very good feature film.",Positive "A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!",Negative "Any movie with ""National Lampoon"" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience.""National Lampoon's European Vacation"" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible ""comic"" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste.",Negative "First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.

FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!",Negative "I really thought this wasn't that bad. Not a great work of art but Dermot M was the stronger performer by far. Patricia Arquette was overacting much of the time. He was actually playing cello which was very impressive, and his lines were never forced. Besides, he is an incredibly Beautiful Man. Really sexy. Add that to the talent, and most anything he's been in is a lot more tolerable. He always gives his all even if some of the projects he's been involved in didn't quite hit the highest mark.. Not the fault of the actor in most cases. He's unfortunately been in some strange films that just didn't resonate at the box office. Always with A-list actors but just not always a ""hit"". But he is ""worth every penny"" of any DVD rented or purchased. See The Wedding Date with Debra Messing - one of his best overall films. WORTH EVERY PENNY! ; ) (if you haven't seen it yet, do, then you'll understand that quote!)",Positive "Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Basically a man at a horn factory is the fourth to crack, and soon enough Ollie cracks with all the horn noises. He is resting at home with Stan by his side, needing quiet, and the Doctor (James Finlayson) phones to say he is coming over to check on Ollie. After realising plumbing and electricity is muddled up by a cross-eyed repairman, the Doctor comes in for a check-up, and after some tests, he recommends drinking goat's milk and getting some sea air on the ocean. After Stan practises some trumpet playing, hanging out the window by the phone cord and a car crash, he and Ollie to a dock to rent a boat. They keep the boat on the dock trying to milk a goat, and Stan has brought his trumpet! Meanwhile, the newspaper's front page reads that Killer Nick Grainger - Escaped Convict (Richard Cramer) has escaped, and he sneaks onto the boys' boat while they are sleeping, and the goat chews through the boat rope, drifting out to sea. In the morning, the see their location, and the Killer comes out demanding something to eat, and he spots Stan and Ollie making fake food, e.g. string for spaghetti, soap for cheese, belt for bacon, sponge for meatballs, and he forces them to eat it. When Ollie starts choking on something, Stan blows his trumpet to help, and Ollie's rage gets him punching the Killer, and it keeps going till the police arrive, only to have Ollie's rage get them put in prison too. There were the tiniest moments of comedy, but it isn't a great black and white film. ""Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!"" was number 60 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes, and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!",Negative "A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child

This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.

There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.

The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.

Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it.

The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool.

The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.

The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.

Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.

Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.

The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name.

The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy.",Negative "I noticed ""Fire"" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.",Negative "Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.

Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's ""Terms of Endearment"" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as ""Dumb and Dumber.""

As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.

The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.

Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?

A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.",Negative "I'll say one thing about this film: there are no lulls. You can't get bored watching this. The problem is that it is TOO intense. There is too much action and it NEEDS lulls! That is the risk you take in modern action films. You want it interesting but not overdone. This is way overdone.

Even though the acting is fine and features a couple of ""names"" in Gary Busey and Roy Scheider, it still has the feel of a ""B"" film. The best part of it is Scheider's dialog: the only ""A"" part of this ""B"" film.

The rest of the story is strictly Rambo mentality but did have a few standout scenes. One in particular was a very innovative scene featuring land mines. That was memorable. Not enough of the other scenes were to make this a keeper for long.",Negative "This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off.

Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie.

This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.

I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed.",Negative "To me movies and acting is all about telling a story. The story of David and Bethsheba is a tragedy that is deep and can be felt by anyone who reads and understands the biblical account. In this movie I thought the storytelling by Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward were at their best. To know and understand the story of David and his journey to become the King of Israel, made this story all the more compelling. You could feel his lust for a beautiful woman, Gregory Peck showed the real human side of this man who in his time was larger than life. Susan Hayward's fear, reluctance, but then obedience to his authority as her King was beautifully portrayed by her. One could also feel David's anguish the nigh that Uriah spent the night at the gate instead of at home. As well as the sadness when he was killed in battle. Raymond Massey's powerful and authoritative condemnation of the King made me feel his anger. The sets were real enough, and the atmosphere believable. All in all I think this was one of the best movies of it's kind. I gave it a rating of ten.",Positive "Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about ""concensus"".

If there were such a consensus, why is it that the ""believers"" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.

Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.

So who's a stooge..?",Negative "Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, ""The Haunting"", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that.

Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.

",Negative "It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.

That alone says what to expect of this movie.

And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.

In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.

Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.

With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.

According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.

If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.

Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.

1940s and 1950s, serve your country.

1960s and 1970s, mock your country.

This is the history.

The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.

Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.

I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.

I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.",Negative "Interesting film about an actual event that took place during the Civil War in Vermont. It kept my attention to the end and I don't regret viewing it. I haven't ever read any on this raid incident so I was curious to see if the rebels pulled it off. I enjoy historical films from that era.

My major complaint is with the Confederate uniforms. They look too good!!! The acting was a little stiff at times. I like the old man eating the mashed potatoes because he didn't have any teeth. The wounded soldier playing fetch with a hound was a little strange. Overall, it was a descent film.",Negative "When I bought this DVD I though: ""It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards… let's give it a chance…"" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere… It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction… The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's… The acting should have been better too… Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production… I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!",Negative "This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...

This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.

Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.",Positive "I cannot stay indifferent to Lars van Trier's films. I consider 'Breaking the Waves' nothing less than a masterpiece. I loved 'Dancer in the Night'. I admired the idea in 'Dogville' but the overall exercise looked to me too dry and too theatrical, less cinema. 'Europa' which I see only now was a famous film at its time, succeeded in the US the relative success of an European film and got the Oscar for the best foreign language movie, but did not survive well the time in my opinion. It is also a too much explicit and extrovert exercise in cinema art to my taste.

The story has a level of ambiguity that cannot escape the viewer. Treating the period that immediately followed the second world war not in the black and white colors of victors and vanquished, of executioners and victims but as rather ambiguous times when people of both sides were fighting for survival in the aftermath of a catastrophic event that change the lives of nations and individuals forever is still a source of disputes even today, more such was novel and courageous two decades ago. Yet it is the means of expression that really do not appear fit to the task.

The film seems to include a lot of quotes descending directly from the films of Hitchcock, especially his early films set in the pre-war Europe, with brave British spies fighting evil German spies on trains crossing at high speed the continent at dark. The trains were a symbol of the world and its conflicts with all their intensity and dramatism. Here the train also becomes the symbol of the first sparkles of the re-birth of Germany after war, of its might, of its obsession with order and regulation, of punctuality and civility. The characters that populate the train are far from being the classical spy stories good or bad guys. The principal character a young American of German origin coming to post-war Europe willing to be part of a process of help and reconciliation finds himself in an ambiguous world of destruction and corruption, with liberators looking more like oppressive occupiers, with the vanquished not resigned to their fate but rather willing to continue on the path of self-destruction, with love doubtfully mixed with treason.

It is yet this classical film treatment that betrays the director in this case. The actions of the characters, especially of Leopold Kessler played by Jean-Marc Barr seem confused, and lack credibility. The overall cinematography seems to be not Hitchcock-like but rather from a bad imitation of Hitchcock in the late 30s. The usage of color over the black-and-white film used in the majority of the time in moments of emotional intensity is also too demonstrative. It is not that Van Trier does not master his artistic means, but he is too demonstrative, he seems to try too hard to show what a great filmmaker he is. He really is great, as he will show in some of his later films, but it will be left to the viewers to decide this alone.",Negative "Entertaining Jim Belushi vehicle, a modern cockeyed version of It's A Wonderful Life. Michael Caine plays a sort-of angel who lets Belush see what life would have been like if he had ""made it big"". Jim is at his best with a good story and supporting cast; seems like real chemistry between him and Hamilton. Not an Oscar contender but good warm-hearted fun.",Positive "I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this ""horror"" movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?

""The Ring"" is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.

Will not recommend this movie.",Negative "I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)",Positive "This move actually had me jumping out of my chair in anticipation of what the actors were going to do! The acting was the best, Farrah should have gotten a Oscar for this she was fabulous. James Russo was so good I hated him he was the villain and played it wonderful. There aren't many movies that have riveted me as this one. The cast was great Alfie looking shocked with those big eyes Farrah looking like a victim and you re-lived her horror as she went through it. Farrah made you feel like you were there and feeling the same anger she felt you wanted her to hurt him, yet you also knew it was the wrong thing to do. The movie had you on a roller coaster ride and you went up and down with each scene.",Positive "Yes, the plot is predictable; yes, there are a few plot holes; yes, it has a made-for-TV quality; and yes, Britney Spears ""wrote"" the book with obvious self-promotion.

But forget all of that... this movie is fun.

Fun in an After School Special sort-of-way, but fun nevertheless.

Virginia Madsen as the mother does a great job... so good that I'm going to start watching for her movies. She reminded me of Diane Lane for all the good reasons.

The rest of the cast does a fine job, too. If I was a casting agent, I'd be scouting some of these young actors.

The production values are above usual TV standards and the music was really great... better than several big-budget movies I've seen.

If you're in the mood for German noir this movie isn't for you. If you want a safe, fun and underrated movie, this is a good one. It's one you could show to your 10 year old daughter but enjoy it yourself too.",Positive "Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.

I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.

Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran – Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.

When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.

A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together – it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.

But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.

I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government.",Positive "Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.",Positive "I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.

The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, ""That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb,"" possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.

Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.",Negative "this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.",Positive "Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.

The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason.",Positive "Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.",Negative "I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne

It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.

I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself ""this is the best I could have done with the material"".

Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.

Such is life.",Negative "When a small town is threatened by a child killer, a lady police officer goes after him by pretending to be his friend. As she becomes more and more emotionally involved with the murderer her psyche begins to take a beating causing her to lose focus on the job of catching the criminal. Not a film of high voltage excitement, but solid police work and a good depiction of the faulty mind of a psychotic loser.",Positive "This is a really funny film, especially the second, third and fourth time you watch it. It's a pretty short film, and i definitely recommend watching it more than once, you will 'get it' more the second time.

It's like spinal tap but the rap version. It has a lot of attitude in it which can be a negative thing in rap influenced films, but it's just a total p**s take and isn't a problem because of the irony it creates.

Plenty of stand-out bits, one of those types of films which you will find yourself quoting lines with your mates, and it WILL raise laughter.

My personal favourite part is the 'guerrillas in the midst' section. Great video, superb!",Positive "I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. ("" no private airplanes"". The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill.",Positive "I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.

I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.

The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.

Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-)

MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time.",Positive "When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the ""message"" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the ""I am a good carrying person"" smile, the concerned look and the ""victory is ours"" body posture, while the bad guys have the ""I'm a bad one"" frowning and the ""you caught me"" look, followed by the ""I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society"" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.",Negative "I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

",Positive "Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie ""roach"" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!",Negative "Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making ""boring."" You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

""HealtH"" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.",Positive """Shall We Dance?"", a light-hearted flick from Japan, tells of an overworked accountant and family man who is attracted to a dance studio by a beautiful woman he see's from the train during his daily commute. What he finds in the studio are lessons in dancing and, most of all, himself. Funny, poignant, and utterly charming, ""SWD"" is an award winning film well worth a look by more mature viewers. (B)",Positive "Any one who saw the original would have to go out and destroy this dreadful remake. Alex Baldwin trying to imitate the late Steve Mcqueen in a word for word remake just doesn't work. While Baldwin has done some admirable work this is a flop from start to finish. McQueen had charisma, never try to compete with a star. As for Kim in the role of Ali McGraw enough said. McQueen looked dangerous, menacing and believable as Doc, the film had excitement and suspense,Baldwin and company made this into a comedy,I laughed the one and only time I saw this miserable film. And that dreadful hairstyle for Michael Madsen who is one of today's more exciting and believable actors! Did the makeup people have it in for Michael, what were they thinking.If you wish to see movie-making the way it was under Sam Peckinpah's direction Get the original!",Negative "I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.

This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.

The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.

It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the ""flashbacks"" could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today.",Positive "I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.

This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.

I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well… I said so.

Done right… I'd say turn it into an HBO original series… hit a different religion every week.

It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.

Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?",Negative "I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one.",Positive "It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?

Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is ""a actriss"" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that.

Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing.

Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between ""reality"" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people ""in real life"" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.

The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.",Negative "Although this isn't a ""great film,"" there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century ""progress."" It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time.",Negative "This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen

Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10

Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10",Negative "This piece of crap might have been acclaimed 60 years ago, but it is one of the most racist movies ever made with the Native American Indians played by white men. The right-wing Republican James Stewart was a huge racist in real life, just like his close friend John Wayne. In 1971 Stewart had actor Hal Williams fired from ""The Jimmy Stewart Show"" (a short-lived series that mercifully flopped) just because Williams was black. As if that were not bad enough, this film is very dated and boring. Watch ""Dances with Wolves"" instead for a less racist view.

Stewart was in his forties when this awful movie was made, and even with his ridiculous wig he still looked like a paedophile chasing after 16-year-old Debra Paget. I'm surprised it was even allowed.

0/10.",Negative "SERIES 1

As the UK eagerly awaits the launch of series two of 'Lost', series one (which just finished showing here) did not disappoint.

A group of over forty passengers struggle to cope after their plane crash-landed into a deserted island. They pray for rescue. However, as the days turn into weeks and the survivors explore the rainforest that surrounds them, they begin to wonder whether they are alone.

Admittedly, the series has a hard time keeping up the pace after the explosive pilot episodes, which hurls at the group a polar bear, a giant beastie and the possibility of others on the island. Nevertheless, the series manages to pick itself up after a few episodes and is outstanding by the final episode. Possibly the greatest thing about 'Lost' is the fact that we visit each character's life before the crash in a series of flashbacks. This gives us more insight and, hence more suspense and excitement as the events unfold in the present.

Ultimately, this show is a superb combination of drama, suspense and the supernatural; it is, quite simply, unmissable.

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 1 FOLLOW

SERIES 2

After the cliffhanger that was the end of Series 1 of 'Lost', Series 2 begins with our protagonists delving deep into the heart of the phenomenon that is the Hatch. They discover a mysterious man who has a job to do. Meanwhile, Michael and Sawyer struggle to cope with the aftermath of what happened on the raft.

As the series progresses, the viewers will be unable to bring themselves to turn off their television set, as every episode of the series contains more twists than a Curly-Wurly chocolate bar, one of which introduces a whole host of new characters. With every mystery solved with 'Lost', five brand new ones seem to come out of the woodworks. After the 974th plot twist of the series, it finally dawns on the viewer that it doesn't actually matter whether the plane-crash survivors make it off the island. However, the stunning series finale answers just over half of those questions, despite its anti-climatic ending.",Positive "I saw ""Fever Pitch"" sort of by accident; it was playing on the airplane going over to Europe. It actually wasn't half bad. Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is the world's #1 Red Sox fan, but his relationship with Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore) may strain that. The movie is a fairly interesting look at how world events can affect peoples' relationships. It's especially eye-opening now that the Red Sox have ended their 80-odd-year losing streak. I guess that these sorts of things happen all the time and we just don't tend to notice them. Not too bad.

Another movie portraying an unusual relation to baseball is 2000's ""Frequency"". Check them both out.",Positive "This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that ""American History X"" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. ""Oi!Warning"" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography",Negative "Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. ""The House of the Spirits"" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.",Negative "Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series.",Positive "Growing up with the Beast Wars transformers, I wasn't very familiar with the original Transformers, and now that I have seen the awesome movie, and now that I have seen the older cartoon on which it's based, I have to say I like the original cartoon and the live action movie more than Beast Wars.

Not that I don't like the BW characters, I just think that characters like Optimus Prime are better than Optimus Primal.

I mean, ""AUTOBOTS TRANSFORM AND ROLL OUT!"" sounds a lot better than ""MAXIMALS MAXIMIZE!"" The voice of the original Optimus Prime still makes me a strong believer that he's a real commander, more so than Optimus Primal.

Besides, Powermaster Optimus Prime is a lot more powerful than Optimal Optimus. Just look on the web!

Megatron in the BW character seemed more like a humorous version of the more evil version of him in the original series.

Besides what's cooler, robots changing into animals or robots changing into vehicles and spaceships? Gimme the original Transformers any day over Beast Wars!",Negative "Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.

It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.

Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.",Negative "If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this ""documentary"" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.

I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense.",Negative "Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.",Negative "It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.

Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....

For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8"" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War!

Never before has ""a nice game of chess"" seemed the better option....",Negative "It's a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy ""Big Deal on Madonna Street"" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals.",Negative "Sidney Young (Pegg) moves from England to New York to work for the popular magazine Sharpe's in a hope to live his dream lifestyle but struggles to make a lasting impression.

Based on Toby Young's book about survival in American business, this comedy drama received mixed views from critiques. Labelled as inconsistently funny but with charm by the actors, how to lose friends seemed as a run of the mill fish out of the pond make fun at another culture comedy, but it isn't.

This 2008 picture works on account of its actors and the simple yet sharp story. We start off in the past, then in the present and are working our way forwards to see how Young made his mark at one of America's top magazines.

Pegg (Hot Fuzz) is too likable for words. Whether it's hitting zombies with a cricket bat or showing his sidekick the nature of the law the English actor brings a charm and light heartedness to every scene. Here, when the scripting is good but far from his own standards, he brings a great deal of energy to the picture and he alone is worth watching for. His antics with ""Babe 3"" are unforgivable, simply breathtaking stuff as is his over exuberant dancing, but he pulls it off splendidly.

Bridges and Anderson do well at portraying the stereotypical magazine bosses where Dunst fits in nicely to the confused love interest. Megan Fox, who stole Transformers, reminds everyone she can act here with a funny hyperbole of a stereotype film star. The fact that her character Sophie Myles is starring in a picture about Mother Teresa is as laughable as her character's antics in the pool. To emphasize the point there is a dog, and Pegg rounds that off in true Brit style comedy, with a great little twist.

Though a British film there is an adaptation of American lifestyle for Young as he tries to fit in and we can see the different approaches to story telling. Young wants the down right dirty contrasted with the American professionalism. The inclusion of modern day tabloid stars will soon make this film dated but the concept of exploitation of film star's gives this edge.

Weide's first picture is not perfect. There are lapses in concentration as the plot becomes too soapy with an awkward obvious twist and there are too many characters to be necessary. The physical comedy can also be overdone. As a side note, the bloopers on the DVD are some of the finest you will ever see, which are almost half an hour long.

This comedy drama has Simon Pegg on shining form again and with the collective approach to story telling and sharp comedy, it is worth watching.",Positive "Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...

The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher ""Hunk""; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea.

*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford",Negative "Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are ""starring"" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!",Negative "Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's ""Up Against Them All"" (""Contra Todos"") at the San Francisco Film Festival? ""It's about a hit man,"" my friend said. ""Well. . . and it's Brazilian,"" I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.

Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.

So how on earth did ""Contra Todos"" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.

First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.

Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called ""Contra Todos"" ""a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil"" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the ""stud of the slum-like neighborhood."" Soninha is ""Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality."" The movie is ""shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera"" and the director ""works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay."" The effect is "" unbearably raw and honest,"" and the movie hurtles ""toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display."" Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.

""Contra Todos"" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming ""favelas"" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as ""Black Orpheus"", ""Pixote,"" and ""City of God"" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.

The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.

A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the ""film"" (his quotes) was ""the worst of the video works"" shown. ""The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film,"" Sheehan wrote, ""and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium"" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.

Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it ""starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill."" Devastating, but true.

Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances ""easily the film's best feature."" Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that "" this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ."" Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to ""Dogme"" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.

Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just ""banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill"" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the ""banality of evil"" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material.

(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)",Negative "It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first ""Nightmare"" movie was his first).

Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see ""Freddy vs. Jason"" again.",Negative "I found this to be a profoundly amusing dark comedy. Brosnan is genius; as anyone will now testify, he is not to be pigeonholed in the bond role. Kinnear was as charismatic and as funny as anyone could have been in the role. I don't know if I've laughed as hard during any movie! What an unexpected pleasure! My favourite line would be 'I feel like a bangkok hooker on a Sunday after the navy left town'. Brosnan delivered this very un-bond line with such unexpected comedic finesse. I was also very impressed with Hope Davis's performance. It seems like everyone in this movie branched out from their previous work to such a degree that it actually improved the comedy. If you liked the dark and hilarious 'The Weather Man', you will definitely like this.

I voted 10.",Positive "As in Amelie, recent French films seem to be taking a stereotypical male-female relationship slant, centered on a female finding her one true love. In this case, desperation leads to a convict, which leads to her evolution into a mob prototype. Clever and surprising story in many ways, except that the female is there to support the male.

For those of us that don't speak French, the subtitles are a little quick, but not unreasonable.

The soundtrack, as seems to be increasingly the case with European films, is great and in perfect sync with the film's variations. Nothing seems forced. Visually, it reminds me of various urban horror movies. There's a Wes Craven in Chicago feel to it.",Positive "I read comments about this being the best Chinese movie ever. Perhaps if the only Chinese movies you've seen contained no dialogue, long drawn-out far-away stares and silences, and hack editing, then you're spot on.

Complicated story-line? Hardly. Try juvenile and amateurish. Exquisite moods and haunting memories? Hardly. Try flat-out boring and trite.

This was awful. I could not wait for it to be over. Particularly when the best lines in the movie consist of ""How are you? I'm fine. Are you sure? Yes."" Wow! What depth of character. I guess the incessant cigarette smoking was supposed to speak for them.

As a huge fan of many Chinese, Japanese and Korean films, I was totally disappointed in this. Even Zhang's sentimentally sappy ""The Road Home"" was better than this.",Negative "This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.",Negative "I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those ""Cosmo's moon"" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a ""Cosmo's moon"" is?",Positive "One of the most beautiful movies ever made in ex Yu.Story is very familiar to people in ex Yul because generation after war used to live in the same way.People in the west cant imagine how political situation in our country affect people.The plot is in the 50"",When Josip Broz Tito said no to the SSSR and politbiro and because of that our borders becomes open for western influence.But,in a country were people didn't had much money jeans was only ideal and friendship was everything.The friendship between for young people an a girl was so strong that after 40 years of their emigration from Yu is still alive.They get together after all this years on Ester""s funeral and they start to remember of their childhood,before their went to the emigration and become successful people.",Positive "With the release of Peter Jackson's famed ""Lord of the Rings"" trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.

The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.

This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.

The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as ""Aruman"".

In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of ""The Fellowship of the Ring"" to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in ""The Two Towers"". The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.

Ralph Bakshi's version of ""The Lord of the Rings"" isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this ""first great tale"" of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel.",Positive "A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.",Negative "There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. ""Criminally Insane 1"" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. ""Criminally Insane 2"" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.

The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.

The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.

Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10",Negative "Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as ""The '60s""?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie ""Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam"" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how ""The '60s"" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, ""American Dreams"" and ""The Wonder Years"" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.",Negative "The extended nuclear family, united in business as well as in personal life, is examined in this serious study of a grown son's conflict with his father's desire that he remain in the family business. This triggers a midlife crisis which may or may not be ameliorated by an affair and retreat to a shrink's couch. Very fine acting by all. A sleeper that deserves wide attention.",Positive "Those childhood memories...when things were new, and we were filled with curiosity about the world around us; as we took those initial first steps in the long journey we call life.

One of the initial memories I have from childhood is this animated program ""Galaxy Express 999,"" about a young boy named Tetsuro, who goes on a train ride around the galaxy, in the hopes of gaining a mechanical body in order to avenge the senseless death of his mother at the hands of cold-hearted, trophy gathering mechanical hunters. Accompanying Tetsuro on his journey is Maetel, a woman of exquisite golden beauty who reminds him of the mother he lost all those years ago...

Back in the early-80's, as a boy who attended kindergarten and the early years of elementary school in Seoul, South Korea, ""Galaxy Express 999"" was a phenomenally popular animated program imported from Japan, which inspired young boys who tuned in to dream of countless adventures in their often tumultuous and exciting journey through life that awaited them. The memories of tuning into this animated program on weekdays between 8 to 9pm before bed time...

Those were some wonderful memories, never to be had again...

As I moved to America, and while residing here for over 2 decades, I sometimes wondered about that time and place, in a country thousands of miles away divided from America by an enormously vast ocean, of this childhood program, with its hit theme song, and of the boy named Tetsuro, his protective companion Maetel, the enigmatic train conductor, and of the spacefaring train Galaxy Express 999.

Many, many years passed...

Last summer while I was in Korea, I was able to track down a copy of the original ""Galaxy Express 999"" (1979) on DVD, and it brought back a lot of nostalgic, heartfelt memories. ""Galaxy Express 999"" remains as captivating as the first time you discovered it all those years ago, opening up those nostalgic memories of new discoveries, an important stepping stone for young boys who tuned in and embarked on their life's journey into manhood.

Here's to wonderful memories. ""Good-bye, Maetel. Good-bye, Galaxy Express 999...

Good-bye, to my childhood.""

10/10",Positive "Oh man, why? ""Six Degrees"" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.

When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.

Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from ""Hostel"", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.

Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.

It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow!",Positive "Sammi, Curr a metal rock god, they tried to stop him, they tried to ban him, the tried to censor his music!! (much like the real life Dee Snider, from Twisted Sister,[Tipper Gore] or Ozzy Osborne) Killed in a fire, Sammi Cure was suppose to play on halloween at his old high school for a dance.. Now Eddie Weinbauer , his #1 fan, and the only one who knew how sammi was, and what he felt (or did he?) Nuke, the d.j. at the local radio station (Gene Simmons) has and gives the only copy of Sammi's last record Eddie.. But when Eddie tries to play the record backwards, he finds Sammi talking to him from the dead, and telling him what to do to get back at the bullies at his school that hate him and his music.. Everything works out until, Sammi starts to kill!! A great movie and must see for heavy metal hairband fans, with a great sound track by Fastway, and just in case you don't know what The songs sound like or know Fastway and doesn't like them, they changed there voice a bit and there style as well to sound like the more known Cinderella, or Ratt.. Is the movie a true horror movie? Well that depends on what you call a horror movie, To me a true horror movie is a slasher, with lots of killing, or just plain be scary.. This movie is neither, not enough deaths, but it can't be called a action, comedy, drama, suspense, or thriller, so that is why I would guess it has to be a horror.. So if you wanna ""Rock N' Roll, Rockin' on the mid night steel your soul!!"" Than Sammi Curr and Trick or Treat is the for you.. I mean ""what are you afraid of? It's only Rock 'N' Roll!?!""",Positive "I saw this movie at Sundance 2005 and was stunned at how bad it was, although based on the catalog description I was excited to see it. Supposedly a ""mockumentary"" of two high school students making a documentary of high school life, it featured bad acting, bad directing, completely lack of engaging characters as written, and all-around is a total bust. I love good movies about high school, and this is not one of them. The characters are one-dimensional and self-consciously ""cool"" although they are supposed to be outcasts. You get the overall impression of a bunch of people sitting around making an on-purposely-bad movie to show their friends, yet somehow it got into Sundance. Mystifying.",Negative "Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau began and ending their career together. Remember best as the Grumpiest of Old Men as well as the Oddest Couple to have ever made us laugh, Lemmon and Matthau were one of Hollywood's best loved comedy teams of the last 100 years. Not as ""raunchy"" as Pryor and Wilder, instead, they were the classic comedy team that reflected a more modern Marx Brothers routine. Such as the physical comedy as well as the mixed blend of chaos that Marx, Chaplin and Keaton were so famous for. In the Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau play complete opposites that create the chaos. The physical comedy is as unique as Chaplins. The joke is usually on themselves as oppose to passing the joke onto another. Not your typical guy film, it is in a way a coming of age comedy with two old men as oppose to two young teenagers in their prime. The chemistry between Lemmon and Matthau is entertainment enough. Although this movie isn't for everyone, this is a great comedy.",Positive "There's no way to confront 'Zabriskie Point' from a rational standpoint or attempt to describe it using words and conventions you'd use for other movies. This is because it isn't a movie. It's an idea and a feeling that the filmmakers have that somehow got turned into an object as mundane as a film. What we see are not the unfoldings of a plot, but rather a sequence of events that we don't see in films every day but only imagine happening as the background we ourselves will supply when we hear about some tragic event in the news of or from friends. We we see is our imagination of people that are abstractions to us- no one we know, but we've doubtless heard of them in a book or on TV or somewhere. So what do we see? Events. We see people arguing, driving, and inevitably, escaping. Only the escape is from something intangible- it is the collective situation and cruelty that the mass of a civilization has allowed to exist though laziness, or...human nature. Set in late 1960s Los Angeles, our players act against and in response to the self-inflicted miseries of modern existence. These creatures are effectively blank slates that can display any trait we can imagine if we desire. Although the actions taken might be seen as criminal or irresponsible, , the characters are not themselves criminals. They are human beings seeking a return to a familiar, non-manufactured existence that is beyond the normalcy they experience everyday. Not that they are ever happy or sad, but they achieve a type of self actualization when they move beyond and away from the suicide of modern living. They only achieve true life in the natural world, even though that is the next victim of modern existence. At the end, 'Zabriski Point' is a eulogy of humanities attachment to the natural world. As even the most desolate pieces of the earth succumb to our notions of progress, we lose our souls on the path to death of the human spirit.",Positive "This might contain a spoiler, so beware.

If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men.",Positive "This show is awesome! and I've seen it about 6 times.

Granted it may be lacking in educational content as some people like those sort of movies, but I think it's great, very funny and excellently written!",Positive "This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery.",Negative "While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.

Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.",Negative "Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.

In his debut, ""Bleed"", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a ""club"" where members have to kill somebody to enter.

Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the ""club"" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.

Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.

The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.

The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.

Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture ""Delta Delta Die!"", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10",Negative "The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment.",Positive "Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)""Gorky Park"" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),""Chloe's Prayer"", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.",Positive "Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as ""Raiders of the Lost Ark"", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: ""Mona, you're a brick!""

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little ""Raiders.."", a dash of ""Batman"", a little ""The Lost World"", a little ""Lost Horizons"" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10",Positive "...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.

Acting? What acting?

Production values? ...Production? ...Values?

Story? Don't get me started.

After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?

In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's ""production"" for his first cinema class, but the referenced ""artist"" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage.

Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good ""exposure"" of the hunk on that cover.

Two final items: there was one second when this ""film"" had redeeming value: the aforementioned ""talent"" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this ""film."". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.",Negative "i've just read the most recent remarks about this movie and i would like to respond. you're probably not familiar with the original story of rap group N.W.A. which dates back to the beginning in 1988, in 1989 ice cube left the band to go solo and ultimately in 1991, the band breaking up when Dr.dre left. which led to a lot of beef starting with the departure of ice cube and dr.dre in 1991. this story was somewhat based on that.

further more this movie was a 90 minute laughing spree, the way they explained the bootie juice song to be a political statement was hilarious. not to mention the ""love song"" tasty was hooking up. and when vanilla sherbert got his ass kicked, just like the record company executive is also hilarious and having they're managers getting shot every time too.

people who didn't enjoy this movie probably didn't get it or were complete idiots, my opinion",Positive "....Rather well done, actually--attack the evil villains in their lair, stop a Little Big Horn style ambush, save the day via the waterboys' bugling, works for me. Stiff Upper British lip and all that.

So how does it play on a DVD 66 years later? Struck me as being like a Western, subbing Apaches or Sioux for the Thugs, and the US Cavalry for the Imperial British Army. It's very Colonial in it's outlook, you know? White Man's burden and all that? Kipling certainly would have approved.

Cary Grant, Fairbanks and MacLaglen play it as broadly as possible, putting some buddy buddy slapstick into the mix between the shootings and brawlings for good measure. (I had no idea it was Joan Fontaine as the token army wife--did they leave some of her scenes on the cutting room floor? very short-) None of them were aiming for an Oscar here--in fact Grant was not at his best in a few scenes--but sod it, it still works. And where else would Ben Casey wind up as an Indian bugler? Only in Hollywood.

Def. check this out if you like adventure and pseudo-Western style antics. It was done by a bunch of pros, well I might add.

*** outta ****",Positive "This episode apparently grew out of the cold war. There has been a holocaust but somehow Elizabeth Montgomery and Charles Bronson have come through unscathed. It then becomes a battle for turf. She is attracted to him and vice versa, but the instinct for survival takes over. It's a quiet, slow moving, chess battle as they attempt to achieve trust. They come to truces but distrust takes over and they start again. Of course, the male female role of the sixties comes into play and modern viewers might find that her need to follow him is a bit offensive. But it still is captivating and interesting. Because she doesn't speak, we don't know here mind very well, but in the end we can guess.",Positive "Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.",Positive "One of director Miike Takashi's very best. It's so good it's difficult to put into words. At nearly fifteen years older than the target audience it thrilled me from beginning to end.

It recalls similar children's films from the 1980s in the sense that (unlike today) those films weren't afraid to scare - there's a lot of nasty detail here that I initially found jarring but soon realised it's nothing different to what I grew up on. The film is a compilation of '80s kid's films conventions. You name it, it's there: a young boy hero thrust from his own unhappy/dysfunctional world into another, inhabited by mythical and mystical goblins; a quest to save both worlds from an evil force; a beautiful heroine he has a crush on; a sadistic henchwoman (Go-Go Yubari from Kill Bill Vol. 1); a lead villain who draws his evil power from something everyone in the world can relate to. But all these genre conventions are given a fresh spin and added depth.

One of the IMDb reviews begins ""Where was this film when I was a kid?"" and it's a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. Even while watching it I lamented the fact that I hadn't grown up on it; that it wasn't a part of my childhood like Labyrinth, Masters Of The Universe and, to a much lesser extent, The Neverending Story. Those films, and others like The Goonies are recalled but never copied - Miike relentlessly offering us a new take on things.

Poor CGI is a staple of many of his films, sometimes due to budgetary limitations but just as frequently an artistic choice - a desire to present things in an outlandish way. Here the CGI is mostly average, solely due to budgetary limitations, but nevertheless he does a fantastic job of putting on a spectacle. The CG effects combine with traditional puppets, animatronics and truly extraordinary make-up to create a world filled with rich characters (and characterisation) that frequently borders on the visionary.

This ranks as one of the greatest children's films ever made. Not for younger or more sensitive kids though.

Just jaw-droppingly wonderful. See it for yourselves and if you think your kids can handle/appreciate it then show it to them. Let them grow up on The Great Yokai War as some small compensation for the fact you couldn't.",Positive "Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious.",Negative I don't think this movie is for everyone. But I saw it this weekend in Seattle and I thought it was so funny. I haven't laughed that hard during a movie in long time. I thought the entire cast did a great job. You will find yourself laughing from the first moment through the very last scene. I suspect some moviegoers (especially the ones who take themselves WAY too seriously) will be turned off by this brand of humor. Not me. The movie was a real surprise. And the entire theater was rolling with laughter throughout the showing I went to which makes me think that a lot of people enjoyed themselves and were happy to have a good time at the movies for a change. I cannot wait to see it again! If you're in the mood to LOL then this is for you. Funny funny funny funny!,Positive "Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one ""The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe."" Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end.",Positive "The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after ""10"".

I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for ""Ghosts Can't Do It"" was circulating among the trainers in the ""fish house"" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to ""go make eggs."" Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...

We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in ""The Big Blue!""

This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy.",Negative "Famous was ""famous"" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.

The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that ""virtue always triumphs"". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always ""learns her lesson"". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.

You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and ""Tom and Jerry"" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer.",Positive "An axellent second installment that manages to be just as good as the first.

Once again, the casting is just wonderful. I like how the first and second episode have nothing in common except for the wit and cleverness.

The second episode is just very funny, very silly and very enjoyable. It is the very first Christmas episode, about a woman who is tormented by a serial killer dressed as Santa after having killed her own husband. Just like the first episode; karma.

The most humorous scene is a tie between the murder of her husband and her phone call, first faking her fear until it becomes real.",Positive "I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a ""good Catholic"" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.

So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.

At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity.",Negative "Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)

Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film – though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre – but quite fun – performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.",Negative "This is one creepy movie. Creepier than anything David Lynch, and that shows what a great director Polanski is since this is not his usual type of work, and it is BRILLIANT.

It all starts of with Trelkovski moves into a tenement block in Paris. He soon learns that the previous tenant, a young woman, committed suicide and he believes the rest of the people living there drove her to it. He also believes that they are trying to do the same to him. What results is a amazing and frightening look at paranoia.

The whole production has classical horror written all over it: from the imagery to the music the viewer can feel poor Trelkovski's terror building up.

Are they all out to kill him? Or maybe just drive him mad? Is there a difference? Find out for yourself. 10/10",Positive "Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.

This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add ""realism"". Unfortunately, ""realism"" is something they could have done without.

John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.

The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.

Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.",Negative "As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.

The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.

All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...",Negative "I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the ""dress rehearsal"" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.",Negative "The first time I saw this film, I loved it. It was different.

I am a Christian (Bible believing). I don't go along with the crowd of right wing believers. I dropped out of that atmosphere.

To me in their attempts to take over our government they are doing what Judas tried to do. I call it the Judas Syndrome.

Judas didn't get it, even though Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world.

This film certainly showed some of that.

I also liked that Jesus enjoyed the simple pleasure of playing games and jokes with his disciples.

Also he was a very gorgeous Jesus.

It's a watch-over and over movie.

Very satisfying.",Positive "Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che – Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?

James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, ""not just the story of a revolutionary,"" but, ""a revolution in and of itself."" The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a ""flawed masterpiece."" I return to my original contention for Part One – that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward – usually everlasting love or material wealth – as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage – not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.

Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.

High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. ""Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time,"" says Soderbergh. ""RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena – light."" If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say – and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).

But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this – interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations – make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.

There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.

With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.

But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.",Positive "I must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.

The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.

The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there.",Negative "I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.",Negative "Before we begin, I have a fear of dentists. This movie gives me the creeps and even makes me cringe. That is what I love about this film. The movie is kind of boring. For that, I take 3 stars off!

*Spoiler Alert*

The movie revolves around Dr. Alan Feinstone who has just found out his wife has been cheating on him. Soon, he begins to have hallucinations and begins torturing his patients, killing co-workers, and he has even tortured his wife to death and killed the man he was having an affair with.

*End Spoiler*

The movie is very bloody and gory. I would recommend it if you are into gore.

I give this film 7 stars out of 10. Dr. Alan Feinstein Is Not Your Normal Everyday Dentist!",Positive "Garde à Vue has to be seen a number of times in order to understand the sub-plots it contains. If you're not used to french wordy films, based upon conversation and battle of wits rather than on action, don't even try to watch it. You'll only obtain boredom to death, and reassured opinion that french movies are not for you.

Garde à Vue is a wordy film, essentially based upon dialogs (written by Audiard by the way)and it cruelly cuts the veil of appearances.

Why does Maître Martineau (Serrault) prefer to be unduly accused of being a child murderer rather than telling the truth ? Because at the time of the murder he was with a 18 years old girl with which he has a 8-years sexual relation. His wife knows it, she's jealous of it and he prefers to be executed (in 1980 in France, there was still death penalty)rather than unveiling the sole ""pure and innocent"" aspect of his pitiful life.",Positive "I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.

Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.

Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy ""insurance"" on Stan.

Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of ""A Chump at Oxford"" or ""Bohemian Girl"" or ""Sons of the Desert"" instead.",Negative "Steely, powerful gangster supreme Frankie Diomede (the always terrific Lee Van Cleef in fine rugged form) has himself arrested and sent to prison so he can rub out a traitorous partner sans detection. Fawning goofball small-time hood and wiseguy wannabe Tony Breda (an amiable portrayal by Tony Lo Bianco) gets busted as well. Frank and Tony form an unlikely friendship behind bars. Tony helps Frank break out of the joint and assists him on his quest to exact revenge on a rival group of mobsters lead by the ruthless Louis Annunziata (smoothly played by Jean Rochefort). Director Michele Lupo, working from an absorbing script by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, relates the neat story at a constant brisk pace, sustains a suitably gritty, but occasionally lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the rousing action set pieces with considerable rip-snorting brio (a rough'n'tumble jailhouse shower brawl and a protracted mondo destructo car chase rate as the definite thrilling highlights). Van Cleef and Lo Bianco display a nice, loose and engaging on-screen chemistry; the relationship between their characters is alternately funny and touching. The ravishing Edwige Fenech alas isn't given much to do as Tony's whiny girlfriend Orchidea, but at least gets to bare her insanely gorgeous and voluptuous body in a much-appreciated gratuitous nude shower scene. Riz Ortolani's groovy, pulsating, syncopated funk/jazz score certainly hits the soulfully swingin' spot. The polished cinematography by Joe D'Amato and Aldo Tonti is likewise impressive. A really nifty and entertaining little winner.",Positive "This film is close to be my favorite piece of celluloid. There is really not much I'd need or want to say here. Except maybe ""See this film"" and ""Enjoy the excellent work by Daniel and Pascal"", who carries you through this neat, funny and heartbreaking story about 'spending your eighth day' - your own day!

Seeing this film made me think seriously about how I spend my eighth day = my life! It appears, that some of us are wasting precious time doing things we think we need to do. Either if it's pleasing a career or just consuming TV-shows and ballgames. What we tend to miss is the satisfaction of being something for another person - make a difference. About taking room and time to be spontaneous and live - NOW! (on the eighth day)... At least that was what I got from 'The Eighth Day'.",Positive "The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed!",Positive "Can you say ""All shock, no plot?"" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an ""hour"" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.

How about the fact that all the ghosts looked ""Digital"", and things ""winked out"" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.

Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but ""shock after shock"". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The ""Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't."" And, if the room was ""evil"", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.

Additionally, there was no background information about ""The first book"" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the ""dad was a jerk"" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? ""You'll be in my place"".

Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.

My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the ""Cheap""; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, ""seen-that-before"" effects.",Negative "WWE was in need of a saviour as Wrestlemania 14 rolled around. The departure of Bret Hart and subsequent evaporation of the Hart Foundation had left the Vile D-Generation X stable unchallenged in the WWE. Their despicable leader Shawn Michaels had stolen the title from Hart thanks to the interference of Vince McMahon and, with help from his cohorts Triple H and Chyna had systematically taken out anyone who challenged his supremacy. But at the Royal Rumble a new contender had emerged. Stone Cold Steve Austin. Hated by McMahonagement, Austin had DX worried. So worried in fact that they'd enlisted the help of ""The Baddest Man on the Planet"" Mike Tyson as a special enforcer. Austin would have the odds firmly against him in his title match with Shawn Michaels.

But first, there was an undercard to get through which kicked off with the Legion of Doom winning a forgettable 15 team battle Royal to become NO.1 contenders for the tag titles. I'd actually forgotten this match existed until I rewatched the PPV. No very good and really highlighted the lack of depth in the tag division at that period in time.

Next match saw the Light Heavyweight title defended by Champion Taka Michonoku against Aguila. The WWE had established the Light Heavyweight Title to compete with the strong Cruiserweight Division in WCW. It was not successful and this was the only time the title was ever defended at Wrestlemania. Short match, going about five minutes, and in fact too short for much to be achieved. What little they did was exciting and this was a nice little match which saw Taka retaining his title.

OK, our next match saw DX member Triple H defending the WWE European title, which he'd won in farcical fashion from Shawn Michaels on RAW in December and hadn't defended on PPV, against Owen Hart, the Sole Survivor. Triple H got a big entrance with the DX band there to perform his theme song. Chyna accompanied Triple H to ringside, but was then handcuffed to WWE Commissioner Sgt Slaughter. Triple H and Owen have a nice little match, before Chyna interfered causing a low blow on Hart which leads to Triple H retaining the title. Good match, could have been great had it gone slightly longer.

But of course we wouldn't want to take time away from our next match which saw real life husband and wife Marc Mero and Sable defeat Goldust and Luna Vachon in the first mixed tag match at Wrestlemania in 8 years. And, in all honesty, it wasn't worth the wait. While not terrible, the match was in no way memorable either. This was the nearing the end of Mero's only run in the WWE and the main purpose was to continue the disintegration of his relationship with Sable.

Next up we saw Ken Shamrock flip out and cost himself the Intercontinental Championship as he destroyed IC Champion The Rock, but then refused to let go of his ankle lock submission hold, resulting in the referee reversing his decision. This was a short match, but decent for what it was.

Next saw the first good match of the night as WWE Tag Team Champions the New Age Outlaws lost their titles to Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie in a fun dumpster match. The decision was overturned the following night as Cactus and chainsaw had thrown the Outlaws into a dumpster backstage, rather than the one being used in the match, but this was still a fun match.

NOw it was time for the highly anticipated first ever meeting between Kane and his brother the Undertaker. Kane had cost Undertaker the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble and then ""killed"" him when he helped Shawn Michaels lock Undertaker in a casket and set him on fire as revenge for the Undertaker burning down their parents house and leaving him horribly disfigured years before. This was a decent match and told a nice story as the Underataker absorbed everything Kane could throw at him and then knocked him out with three tombstones to end the match.

This left only the main event which saw WWE Champion face Steve Austin with Mike Tyson as the guest enforcer. Michaels had suffered a debilitating back injury in his match with the Undertaker at the Royal Rumble and was remarkable in this match despite his physical limitations. Triple H and Chyna were banished to the back in the early going after interfering from the outside. The match ended with Austin ducking an attempt at Sweet Chin Music and hitting the Stone Cold Stunner with the ref down. TYson then came into the ring to count the three, celebrating the win with Austin and then knocking out Michaels after the match. It turned out Tyson and Austin were together and the cat had been playing with the mouse all along.

That was the final PPV match for Shawn Michaels for four and a half years. It helped establish Austin as the biggest star in the wrestling business and the mainstream publicity garnered by Tyson's appearance proved a crucial turning point in the WWE's battle with WCW. Austin would go on to become the biggest star in WWE History, and along with the Rock, Mick Foley, the Undertaker and Triple H lead the WWE through the period where they would gain their highest level of cultural relevance. And it all started here at Wrestlemania 14.",Positive "They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from ""His Girl Friday"" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: ""I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism."" Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the ""American Tragedy""/Place in the Sun boating ""accident."" As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, ""I'd be very surprised if he killed one person."" This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.",Positive I really cant think of anything good to say about this film...not a single thing. The script is a nightmare.. the writer blurs the line between chemical and biological traits and doesnt seem to understand the difference. You'd think they would at least get a technical advisor. The performances were bad by most of the cast... although I dont really blame them.. the material really stinks. The editing was equally bad.. I'll just stop now.. its all bad 2/10,Negative "No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in ""Jackson County Jail,"" sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney ""Witch Mountain"" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis (""Night Tide"") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo.",Positive "The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.",Negative "I generally find Loretta Young hard to take, too concerned with her looks and too ladylike in all the wrong ways. But in this lyrical Frank Borzage romance, and even though she's playing a low-self-esteem patsy who puts up with entirely too much bullying from paramour Spencer Tracy, she's direct and honest and irresistible. It's an odd little movie, played mostly in a one-room shack in a Hooverville, unusually up-front about the Depression yet romantic and idealized. Tracy, playing a blustery, hard-to-take ""regular guy"" who would be an awful chauvinist and bully by today's standards, softens his character's hard edge and almost makes him appealing. There's good supporting work from Marjorie Rambeau and Glenda Farrell (who never got as far as she should have), and Jo Swerling's screenplay is modest and efficient. But the real heroes are Borzage, who always liked to dramatize true love in lyrical close-up, and Young. You sort of want to slap her and tell her character to wise up, she's too good for this guy, but she's so dewy and persuasive, you contentedly watch their story play out to a satisfying conclusion.",Positive "By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though!",Positive "I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable ""soundstage productions"" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.

Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, ""Rocky Mountian"". In ""Man Behind the Gun"", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in ""Operation Pacific"", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?

There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre.",Negative "Description: Corny, utterly stupid and worthless. It's so cheap and lame, it'll make you wonder why these abnormally dumb people even wasted 2 months or so to spend a budget (I'm guessing this...) probably no more than 700 dollars to make this movie. It was just hysterical to watch with or without Mystery Science Theater. I am giving you the best advice in the world:

Spare yourself, spare your time, life, and money, by NOT--I repeat, NOT even ponder about whether you should see this movie. This movie is so corny, it'll make your face turn purple of outraged boredom. If you have a one-digit IQ, then be my guest and watch this absolutely despicable movie. You might actually admire it. (Like I said before, IF you have a one-digit IQ)

With about 12 actors of your own, a few puppets you bought at a garage sale, and of course cameras and music, I gaurentee you'll make a slightly more entertaining home video than this piece of absolute crap.",Negative "Ironically, although he can do the ""splits"", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor.

This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it.

Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous ""pommel horse"" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits.

Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think.

I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.",Negative "This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.

Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called ""The brain that wouldn't die."" Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his ""so called movie."" That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and ""The Brain that wouldn't Die"" was born.

I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.

Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called ""The Head that wouldn't Die"".

I hate this movie!",Negative "This is one of my favorite family movies. Loved it when I was little and it still holds up with me now that I'm older. I still laugh at all the same old jokes and might even shed a tear a times. I never have much cared for animals talking, or at least UN-animated ones but this one I'll stand up for. It's a pretty old movie but it will always hold a place in my heart.

There aren't any other live animal movies that I can think of at the moment that I even could compare with, let alone like as much as this one. I might be giving too much praise to this movie but I don't think show. I really holds that great message that"" Home is where the heart is."" Or at least that's the message I gained from it. Definitely recommended for a good old family movie night.",Positive "There's about 25 years worth of inspiration packed into it. Beginning with existential themes of Blade Runner, as well as the vision of the future - with corporate billboards advertising their products, to the technology of the later Matrix films and Spielberg's A.I., and finally the black and white graphic novel look similar in style of Sin City. The creators have put in a lot of effort in the visual department and the outcome is a well crafted future neo-noir. Add a detective story and you've got an interesting film. I know what it wanted to be, but regardless of the stunning visuals, it wasn't enough to get it to the final destination.",Positive "Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the ""Elephant's Graveyard"" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the ""Elephant's Graveyard"") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.",Positive "The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although ""Smokey & the Bandit"" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. ""Corvette Summer"" is as quirky as any earlier movie like ""Vanishing Point"" or ""Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry,"" if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see ""Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas"") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the ""I am Woman"" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your ""Pong"" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle ""Stingray,"" which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by ""Speed Channel's"" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in.",Negative "Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in ""Mary Shelley's Frankenstein"" - but THIS -

I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up ""madcap"" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.

I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.

Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in ""Full Monty.""

The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?

Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.

",Negative "I didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs....",Negative "This show is quick-witted, colorful, dark yet fun, hip and still somehow clean. The cast, including an awesome rotation of special guests (i.e. Molly Shannon, Paul Rubens, The-Stapler-Guy-From-Office-Space) is electric. It's got murder, romance, family, AND zombies without ever coming off as cartoony... Somehow. You really connect with these characters. The whole production is an unlikely magic act that left me, something of a skeptic if I do say so myself, totally engrossed and coming back for more every Wednesday night. I just re-read this and it sounds a little like somebody paid me to write it. It really is that good. I just heard a rumor that it was being canceled so I thought I'd send off a flare of good will. This is one of those shows that goes under the radar because the network suits can't figure out how to make it sexy and sell cars with it. Do yourself a huge favor, if you haven't already, and enjoy this gem while it lasts. OK so one more thing. This show is clever. What that means is that every armchair critic/""writer"" in Hollywood is gonna insert a stick up their youknowwhat before they sit down to watch it, defending themselves with an ""I could've written that"" type speech to absolutely nobody in their lonely renovated Hollywood hotel room. In other words: the internet. This is a general interest/anonymous website. Before you give your Wednesday TV hour to Dirty Sexy Money or Next Hot Model reruns or whatever other out and out tripe these internet ""critics"" aren't commenting on, give my fave' show a spin. It's fun. Good, unpretentious fun.",Positive This is a documentary I came across by chance on the UK TV channel More4 and I have to say I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I will also be seeking out the book that was the source material for this documentary. Basically this is Professor Jared Diamond theory on why certain parts of the earth's societies prospered and others did not. The argument he presents was new to me and argued about how the fortune of the right crops and the right animals that where able to domesticated is certainly a compelling one. As for the documentary itself it is well shot and well narrated with not to much of the re-created scenes that spoil many a modern documentary. Diamond also helps by not being to condescending which is a fault of a lot of intellectuals when trying to get a message to the masses. People have claimed his theory is Marxist but I do not buy this and see it more socio geologist. It was also refreshing to hear an theory on the evolution of society not based around religion. Highly recommended viewing.,Positive "For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.

Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.

Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.

The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?

Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.

Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.

Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you.",Negative "This was one of those films I probably never would have picked off the shelf , but it came on IFC one day and I said - Eric Stolz, William Forsythe...why not? If I'd changed the channel, I would have really missed a treasure.

The subject is depressing - young author paralyzed in climbing accident convalesces in lower-class rehabilitation center. It would have been so easy and tempting to make this a manipulative tear-jerker. But, that doesn't happen because it was written by Neal Jimenez, after he himself was accidently paralyzed. No Hollywood happiness here. All of the patients in the ward come from wildly different backgrounds, but they share a feeling of helplessness, of being at the mercy of others. Stolz is very good as a ""lone wolf"" type, forced into embarrassing dependence on his girlfriend (Helen Hunt); Wesley Snipes is fine as a former ladies' man whose family is falling apart; but William Forsythe takes the cake as a tough guy determined to make someone pay for taking away his independence.

See this film.",Positive "Anna (Charlotte Burke) develops a strange fever that causes her to pass out and drift off into a world of her own creation. A bleak world she drew with a sad little boy as the inhabitant of an old dumpy house in the middle of a lonely field. Lacking in detail, much like any child drawing the house and it's inhabitant Marc (who can't walk because Anna didn't draw him any legs) are inhabitants of this purgatory/limbo world. Anna begins visiting the boy and the house more frequently trying to figure what's what and in the process tries to help save the boy, but her fever is making it harder for her to wake up each time and may not only kill her, but trap her and Marc there forever.

Wow! Is a good word to sum up Bernard Rose's brilliantly haunting and poetic Paperhouse. A film that is so simple that it's damn near impossible to explain and impossible to forget. While you may find this puppy in your horror section it's anything but. It's more of a serious fantasy, expertly directed, and exceptionally well acted by it's cast, in particular Charlotte Burke and Elliot Speirs (Marc). And yet, it's not a children's movie either, but meant to make us remember those carefree days of old that are now just dark memories. Rose creates a rich tapestry of moody ambiance that creates a thrilling backdrop for the brilliant story and great actors to play with. Paperhouse stays away from trying to explain it's more dreamy qualities and leaves most things to the viewers imagination. There's much symbolism and ambiguity here to sink your teeth into. Paperhouse enjoys playing games with the viewers mind, engrossing you with it's very own sense of reasoning. As the story unfolded I was again and again impressed at just how powerful the film managed to be up to the finale which left me with a smile on my face and a tear in my eye.

Bernard Rose's visuals are brilliant here. He's able to create an unnervingly bleak atmosphere that appears simple on the surface, but as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. The acting is of young Charlotte Burke in this, her feature debut, is a truly impressing as well. Unfortunately she's not graced the screen since. A much deserved Burnout Central award only seems proper for that performance. Toward the end the movie lags a bit here and there, but I was easily able to overlook it. I wished they had took a darker turn creating a far more powerful finale that would have proved to be all the more unnerving and truly riveting in retrospect. The movie as is, is still one for the books and deserves to be seen by any serious film lover. It's a poetic ride told through the innocent eyes of a child, a powerful film in which much is left to be pondered and far more to be praised.",Positive "My giving this a score of 3 is NOT what I would give the original Soviet version of this film. It seems that American-International (a studio that specialized in ultra-low-budget fare in the 60s) bought this film and utterly destroyed it--slicing a two hour plus film into a 64 minute film! Plus, much of this 64 minutes was new material (such as the ""monsters"")--so you know that this film bears almost no similarity to the original. The original film appears to be a rather straight drama about the Soviet conquest of space--though I really am not sure what it was originally! For insight into the original film, read Steven Nyland's review--it was very helpful.

By the way, this was the third Soviet sci-film I've seen that American-International bought and then hacked apart to make a ""new"" film--standard practice to a company that was willing to put just about anything on the screen to make a buck--provided, of course, it didn't cost them much more than a buck in the first place!! This Americanized film was about two rival world powers (NOT the US and Soviets) trying to be the first to Mars. The tricky ""bad guys"" try but fail and the ""good guys"" rescue one of the idiot astronauts and then head to Mars. Unfortunately, they are temporarily stranded on a moon of Mars where they see some monsters (added by American-International) that are REAAAALLY cheesy and one does bear similarity to a certain part of a female's anatomy. Then, they are rescued--returning to Earth heroes.

The bottom line is that the film was butchered--turning an incredibly beautiful piece of art (for the time) being turned into a grade-C movie. Because of this, the Soviets really had a reason to hate America! I'm just shocked that the horrible job A-I did with this film didn't convince them to refuse to sell more films to these jerks! It's worth a look for a laugh, but the really bad moments that make you laugh are few and far between. So, the film is a dud--not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad movie buffs and too dopey to be taken seriously. I would really love to see this movie in its original form--it must have been some picture.",Negative "A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story ""The Most Dangerous Game,"" look elsewhere. ""Seven Women for Satan""

only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.

Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.

Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more

interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.

In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.",Negative "I watched this film a few times in the 90's and nearly split my sides laughing each time. I love Eddie Murphy as an actor, but this stand up is some thing else. He is SO funny. Even the P.C. brigade would find this hilarious. It's a must watch, and even better if you've got the guys or girls in for a drink. The take off of Michael Jackson is so like him, if you close your eyes you believe it's him singing. The things he describes are true to life and you would seriously have to have a humour bypass if you thought this was not funny. My local video stores do not stock this video any more but I would love to get my hands on a copy to show my husband and boys when they are old enough to appreciate the humour. Anyway, highly recommended, hope you enjoy.",Positive "This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the ""Corpse Eaters Drinking Game"": Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.

The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!",Positive "Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters ""dig"" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. ""Silver Heels"" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?",Negative "Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.

The film's ""plot"" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the ""Jerry Farrelly Show"" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)

MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)",Negative "Dear Friends and Family,

I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, ""birth control"" doesn't mean ""oral sex"", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a ""bit of a romantic guy"", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.

Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.

I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.",Negative "I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway.",Negative "A remarkable example of cinematic alchemy at work, with a trite'n'turgid lump of lead script (penned by numbingly mediocre Hollywood hack nonpareil Jole Schumacher, no less) being magically converted into a choice chunk of exquisitely gleaming 24-carat musical drama gold thanks to brisk direction, fresh, engaging performances, spot-on production values, a flavorsome recreation of 50's era New York, an infectiously effervescent roll-with-the-punches tone, and a truly wondrous rhythm and blues score by the great Curtis Mayfield.

The story, loosely based on the real life exploits of the Supremes, prosaically documents the arduous rags-to-riches climb of three bright-eyed, impoverished black teenage girl singers who desperately yearn to escape their ratty, unrewarding ghetto plight and make it big in the razzle-dazzle world of commercial R&B music. All the obvious pratfalls of instant wealth and success -- egos run destructively amok, drugs, corruption, fighting to retain your integrity, and so on -- are predictably paraded forth, but luckily the uniformly excellent work evident in the film's other departments almost completely cancels out Schumacher's flat, uninspired plotting. The first-rate acting helps out a lot. Irene Cara, Lonette McKee, and Dwan Smith are sensationally sexy, vibrant and appealing leads -- and great singers to boot. Comparably fine performances are also turned in by a charmingly boyish pre-""Miami Vice"" Philip Michael Thomas as the group's patient, gentlemanly manager, Dorian Harewood as McKee's venal, aggressively amorous hound dog boyfriend, and perennial blaxploitation baddie Tony (""Hell Up in Harlem,"" ""Bucktown"") King as a dangerously seductive, smooth operating, stone cold nasty gangster. The tone dips and dovetails from funny and poignant to melancholy and blithesome without ever skipping a beat, deftly evolving into a glowing, uplifting ode to the human spirit's extraordinary ability to effectively surmount extremely difficult and intimidating odds.

Veteran editor Sam O'Stern acquits himself superbly in his directorial debut. Bruce Surtees' luminescent cinematography and Gordon Scott's expert editing are both flawless. O'Stern's firm grasp of period atmosphere, keen eye for tiny, but telling little details, and unerring sense of busy, unbroken pace are just as impressive. No fooling about Curtis Mayfield's impeccable soundtrack contributions, either. ""Jump,"" ""What Can I Do With This Feeling,"" ""Givin' Up,"" ""Take My Hand Precious Lord,"" ""Lovin' You Baby,"" and ""Look Into Your Heart"" are all terrifically tuneful, soulful, almost unbelievably fantastic songs, with the sweetly sultry love jones number ""Something He Can Feel,"" which was later covered by both Aretha Franklin and En Vogue, clearly copping top musical honors as the best-ever song in the entire movie. The net result of all these above cited outstanding attributes persuasively illustrates that sometimes it's not the screenplay so much as what's done with said script which in turn determines a film's overall sterling quality.",Positive "I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get ""best animated short film"" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic ""Jason Steele Marathon."" I do have a lot of those.

-R",Positive "1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar ""Little Tramp"" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.

As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).

Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.",Negative "This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.

The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.

Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.

Welcome to Burgundy!",Positive "At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: ""No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates."". Indeed.

'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.

Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.

The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.

The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).

Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: ""I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!""",Positive "The Plainsman is an entertaining western, no doubt a classic, which is actual even today. Gary Cooper is Wild Bill Hickok, ideal for the role, together with John Wayne and James Stewart, they were the best actors that played western heroes in their generation. Jean Arthur is great as Calamity Jane, nobody that I know played it better than her. Even if might not be historically accurate, the film manages to capture the most important about Hickok and about the time it takes place. Sometimes you have to sacrifice History to make your point and that is what DeMille does here. The friendship of Hickok with Buffalo Bill, the selling of rifles to the Indians by a great manufacturer to compensate for the losses he would have because of the end of the civil war, Custer and Little Big Horn, the uneasy relationship between Buffalo Bill's wife, a religious woman, with Hickok a man who had killed plenty, also the unusual love affair between Hickok and Calamity all this makes 'The Plainsman' a non conventional and interesting film. Anthony Quinn has a very short appearance, that already shows what a great actor he was going to become. A lot of care was taken to show the original guns of that time.",Positive "i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan...",Negative "Before seeing this movie, please check out reviews available on the internet regarding the movie's falsification of events, particularly its prevarications regarding the widely accepted fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men were bused out of Srebrenica and shot by Serbian paramilitaries. The documentarian also belongs to various pro-Serbian American organizations. Please watch this movie critically, and read reviews beforehand. Most reviews argue that the documentarian takes his arguments too far, even if he raises questions that target the conventional wisdom regarding the war. A review in the NYTimes by Stephen Holden states that it would be ""inaccurate to label this documentary pro-Serbian,"" but one should question both the presentation of facts, many of which are taken from reliable sources, and the omission of those facts that inculpate Serbian forces. I do not advise against seeing this documentary, but I do caution you to examine it with an especially critical eye (as one should do at all times anyway).",Negative "A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece!",Positive "At long last! One of Michael Jackson's most well known and beloved films comes to DVD! In Michael Jackson Moonwalker, (Michael Jackson) stars as Michael. A man with powers that are not of this world. Michael must save Sean (Sean Lennon), Katie (Kellie Parker), Zeke (Brandon Quintin Adams), and the rest of the worlds children from drug lord Frankie Lideo aka Mr. Big (Joe Pesci) who's mission in life is to get all of the worlds children hooked on drugs! A NOTE TO PEOPLE IN THE USA LOOKING FOR THIS FILM ON DVD: Make sure when buying this film on DVD you buy Warners Product #WK00817 as NTSC Region 3 which plays on North American NTSC Region 1 players.",Positive "A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.

The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.

Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seen—a sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish.",Positive "This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.

As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.

Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in ""Spiderman 2."" My evaluation: 9 out of 10.",Positive "I am never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.",Negative "The directing behind this film was fantastic for a comedy. Many of the scenes appear to be out of a comic book and much darker (visually -- not story wise) than what I expected. Granted, this may not be the funniest movie ever made, especially if you are into very crude sexist jokes as this has very little of that (compared to others like Something About Mary or American Pie). As you rewatch it, several jokes stand out and get funnier. If you have ever read a comic book or watched a comic book-type movie (Batman, X-Men, etc.) and liked them, you will probably enjoy the subtle humor that continues throughout the movie. If you didn't like them, you may like the respectful ridicule that this film has for those. If you did like this movie, the dvd has some cool extras. (8/10)",Positive "I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.

Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.

This movie helps set the record straight.",Positive "Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3-",Positive "This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about ""taming"" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a ""real man"" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.

There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his ""squaw"". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.

Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.

Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss.",Negative "The first one was the best. The second one sucked because the dialog was terrible. Although, the storyline wasn't so bad (in fact, all story lines are good and bad). Throughout the movie, I dosed off a few times. I know that Jackie Chan is a great martial arts expertise, but not a good actor in Rush Hour 2. Chris Tucker, too, wasn't good. And Zhang Ziyi, what can I say, a few lines, terrible acting (But that's based on her script). All the characters there were not that good. But, some of the things I like in Rush Hour 2 is always the action and less sex scenes. I know that Jackie Chan doesn't do those things which is good for him.",Negative "This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?",Negative "For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.",Negative "Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.

A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the ""new immigrants"" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.

Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.

Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the ""little train that could"". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- ""the money, the women and the power.""

That's what Tony saw as the American dream.

He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the ""f"" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to ""be all they can be in America."" It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.

The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.

After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?

This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to ""be somebody"" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.

Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today?",Positive "and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.",Negative "Simply put, this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. The title, The Rise to Evil, should tell you that this isn't going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with Hitler's character. Rather, from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby Hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background, we are given a view of Hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian, seemingly ripped right out of a Saturday morning TV show. The film REALLY wants to make its case that Hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that Hitler was evil? Ultimately, making him such a one-dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept, phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named Time's man of the year). This film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century, and try to delve into his mind. Instead, it basically just says, ""Hey! Hitler was evil! Just thought you might like to know..."" over and over again. The great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. Give me a break.",Negative "Look, if I were interested in a Nancy Drew book, what I would do is pick up a book and read it. I'm not. Ever since I can remember I read people trashing movies because it wasn't like the book. I'm sorry - in the digital age we can no longer watch movies on flip books, however I'm sure you can still find a few short silent films in book form. When Lord of the Rings came out, people complained. When the third one won an Oscar - ""The book was better."" When I watched To Kill a Mockingbird, ""the book was better."" Now a bunch of people are upset, yet again, because Nancy Drew wasn't like the book. I'm not saying Nancy Drew is going to win any Oscars - if anything it'll be one of those Nickelodeon Blimps or Kids Choice Awards. I'm saying give film a break. It's film, not paper. As a movie, I found Nancy Drew quite enjoyable - featuring cameos from Bruce Willis and Adam Goldberg (The Hebrew Hammer) and supporting roles featuring Tate Donovan (Jimmy Cooper on the O.C.) and Rachel Leigh Cook (She's All That). This is the first time I've seen Emma Roberts in a movie and, frankly, I enjoy her work more than most of Julia and of Eric's; her character stays consistent throughout the film and reacts well with conflict. A lighthearted movie in the spirit of Harriet the Spy is nice now and again.

I give it ten stars because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, would love to see it again, and will probably buy it upon DVD release.",Positive "I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.

I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.

I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.

I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.

I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.

This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.",Positive "This movie is now my gauge against which all other movies will be compared...as in, ""was it as stupid as Revolver?"" I too was in the Toronto International Film Festival audience last night where a room filled with over 2000 people walked out in an eerie silence after being absolutely dumbstruck by 2 hours of sheer nonsense. Jason Stratham would have been amazing if only he had a purpose. Within the first 10 minutes he's given a proposition by Andre 3000 and Big Pussy (of Soprano's fame) which makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Then there's some shooting and then there's Ray Liotta wearing embarrassing bikini briefs, then there's some animation, Ray Liotta's naked butt, lots of shooting, teeth gnashing, art house wanna be pretensions and more of Liotta's embarrassing body that elicited laughs at every showing...which I'm not quite sure was the reaction he was looking for...not 5 times anyway. Everyone in this movie thinks they're smarter than the average bear and Guy Ritchie thinks he's Yogi Bear incarnate. The story lines might have went nowhere but the posturing was outta sight! The only way this movie could have been worse is if Madonna herself was in it.",Negative "I love all of the movies by Michael Landon Jr. And Michael Landon Jr's casting of Dale Midkiff as ""Clark Davis""could not of been any better. Dale Midkiff has the ways to pull off this character.

This movie kept me spellbound from start to finish.

The death of Missie & Willies baby girl with the timing of Clarks visit was only Gods timing. How they dealt with the death and how Clark helped them do so was that of a fathers love.

Although there are 3 movies before this one [ Love Comes Softly , Loves Enduring Promise & Loves Long Journey], I feel you can see this movie and understand it easily. Yet leave and want to see the previous 3 movies due to the history all the characters have behind them.

Michael Landon Jr. is an excellent director

I look forward to many more movies from him in the future.",Positive "Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of seconds

The shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention.

Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.",Negative "Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright!",Negative "Lee Chang-dong's exceptional ""Secret Sunshine"" is the single most emotionally ravaging experience of the year. It is an instantly sobering, brutally honest character piece on the reverberations of loss and a graceful memento mori that resonates with a striking density of thought, yet remains as inscrutable as the emotions it observes. Through its layered naturalism and stunningly trenchant view of small-town dynamics, Lee implicitly deconstructs the traditional Korean melodrama by pulling apart the cinematics of excess and ripping to shreds the arcs that shape its characters and grounds the proceedings into a crushing grind of stoic realism.

""Secret Sunshine"" remains an immensely compelling, fluid work throughout its 142-minute runtime. Its bravura first hour is filled to the brim with subtextual insinuations, remarkable foreshadowing and adroit reversals of tone brought about by humanistic capriciousness. Adapted from a short story, Lee infuses the film with his sensitivity for the sublime paradoxes of life, last seen in his transgressively comic and irreverent ""Oasis"". Understanding how personal revolutions are forged when views of our universe are changed, Lee not only sees the emotional cataclysm of a widow's sorrow through an inquiring scope but also feels the tumultuous existential currents that underpin the film when religion becomes a narrative scapegoat in comprehending the heinousness of the human experience.

Do-yeon Jeon's (""You Are My Sunshine"") Best Actress accolade at Cannes in 2007 is well deserved. Her performance as the widow Shin-ae remains an unrelenting enigma. As a character pulled apart by forces beyond her control, the sheer magnificence of this performance is central to the film's turbulent nature. With Jeon essaying one cyclonic upheaval after another, there's a tremulous sense of collapse that the film, to its credit, never approaches. Instead it finds a delicate balance that saps the charged theatricality and subsequent banality from ordinary tragedies and its fallouts. She becomes the centre of the film's universe as well as ours. Filmed in glorious hand-held CinemaScope, the film demolishes the cinematicism of frames and compositions by becoming visually acute just as it is quietly harrowing when the camera never relinquishes its gaze from Shin-ae through times of happiness, guilt and remorse.

Lee captures the details of life in the small, suspicious town of Miryang – the awkwardness of communal situations, its uncomfortable silences and its devastations spun out of personal dramas. Shin-ae's interactions with the townsfolk rarely inspires dividends, especially when they are merely done out of obligation to fit in for the sake of her son, Jun (Seon Jung-yeop). The one recurring acquaintance is Jong-chan (Song Kang-ho), a bachelor mechanic of uncertain intentions who helps her en route to Miryang in the film's enchanting open sequence set to a captivating stream of sunlight. Song has situated himself as a comedic anti-hero in South Korea's biggest films but his nuanced, low-key delivery here purports the director's thought process of never having to reveal more than plainly necessary.

If pain is ephemeral, then grief can never truly dissipate. And Lee finds complexity in subsistence. When Shin-ae attempts to head down the path of reconciliation only to be faced again with unimaginable heartbreak, she unsuccessfully employs the fellowship of evangelical Christianity as a foil to her sorrow. But Lee knows better than that when he understands that religion, in the context of the human canvas of strife and misery, is never a simple solution. But Lee never rebukes the essence of religion as he realises the value of salvation for some through a higher power even if it serves a form of denial in others. The scenes in its latter half which deal with religion doesn't allow itself to become aggressively scornful, which is a feat in itself considering how many filmmakers let the momentum of the material take over from what they need to say to be true to its story and characters.

Lee's first film since his call to office as his country's Minister of Culture and Tourism is an uncompromising dissertation on human suffering. In a film so artless and genuine, it arduously reveals that there's nothing as simple as emotional catharsis, just the suppression and abatement of agony. ""Secret Sunshine"" leaves us with tender mercies pulled out of evanescence, and points towards a profound understanding of despair and faith.",Positive "How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.

He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.

It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.

Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.

Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did.",Negative "Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie

Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.

This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.

Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget

I give it 3/10",Negative "Anyone who is a sucker for 1920s jazz, 1920s dress, the Charleston, and ultra-swanky yachts (e.g. me, on all counts) will want to like this movie. But the sad fact is that that's all there is. The plot is banal and obvious, the acting mostly either awful or playing to the farcical side of the goings-on, and when the whole thing's over there is not much left but the impression of mirrors and smoke. This is a beautifully made bad movie.",Negative "When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was ""A Chorus Line"" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.

Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take ""A Chorus Line"", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.

Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; ""A Chorus Line"" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.

Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.

Like a movie I saw recently, ""A Prairie Home Companion"", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.

In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: ""Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't"". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.

To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in ""A Chorus Line"", it's impossible not to be moved.

During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words ""let me dance for you"" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.",Positive "This movie is one of the many ""Kung Fu"" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- ""Wax on, wax off"" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. ""This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!"" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!",Positive "... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.

OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.

There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.

So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.",Negative "The lovely Danish actress Sonja Richter steals this film from under the noses of everyone, no small feat considering the terrific performances surrounding her.

Richter plays Anna, an out-of-work, independent-minded, somewhat neurotic (and perhaps suicidal) actress who lands a desperation job looking after a wheelchair-bound, muted, aged father named Walentin (the great Danish actor Frits Helmuth, who died at 77 shortly after this film was made).

SPOILER ALERT

Walentin refuses to respond to anyone --until he confronts the gifted Anna, whose whimsical and mischievous manner brings the poor old battered devil back from a self-imposed death sentence.

Writer/director/actor Eric Clausen has made a strong film about the difficulty a ponderous businessman son (Jorgen, played by Clausen) has loving a father who has never accepted him. The film sags toward the end, but Clausen has some important things to say about euthanasia, the nature and value of loving and caring, and how one person, the irrepressible Anna, can alter the course of a human life. Highly recommended. Sonja Richter's performance is alone worth the price of admission.",Positive "I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that ""local babe"" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the ""youngsters"" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a ""Where are they now"" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder ""what ever happened to X?"" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.",Negative i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different.,Positive "Anyone who had never seen anything like the fight scenes in The Matrix has never seen this movie. The fight scenes were choreographed by action scene psychopath Yuen Woo Ping, who also did the fights in The Matrix. And the fight scenes are somethin.

Li plays a supersoldier who feels no pain, who now lives a life as a pacifist librarian (ya got me). When other evil supersoldiers begin killing off local drug lords to take over the drug trade, Li teams up with his cop buddy to help stop them.

There are some absolutely crazy things going on in this movie (one badguy gets his arm lopped off with a pane of glass and hardly notices). The fights scenes are filled with flying kicks and punches; the body count is way up there. Li has seldom been better, and he has surrounded himself with a bevy of beautiful female costars (Yip kicks some serious ass as a fellow supersoldier). Anthony Wong even makes a cameo as a drug lord (no suprises there; he makes a cameo in every HK movie). It's unfortunate they don't make action movies like this in the US; I wouldn't have to sit through all of these horrible dubbing jobs to see that action that I crave so much. Recommended.",Positive "Police Story is a stunning series of set pieces for Jackie Chan to show his unique talents and bravery. Some of the stunts here are among Jackie's best and most dangerous the whole mall fight finale is probably Jackie's greatest single fight sequence, more brutal and less comedic then say Project A or Drunken Master at the end of the fight you can almost feel the pain of the impact.

But unfortunately the rest of the film doesn't hold up to this quality as it is a rather formulaic cop thriller with some comedy elements. I always prefer JC in films such as Project A where his natural comic talents shine through. In the serious confines of some elements of Police Story it just doesn't work for me. Having said that though this is still up there with Jackies best films due to the incredible stunt work and sheer spectacle.

As usual with Hong Kong films avoid the English dubbed DVD version as it is truly awful stick with the subtitles.

Great stunts, OK movie a fine starting point if you've not seen a JC movie before and well worth a watch for any movie fan 7/10",Positive "Don't be deceived as I was by the 'glowing' reviews quoted on the DVD box. ""Wildly entertaining."", ""a seriously scary freakout."", and the worst of all, ""ON PAR WITH JAWS."" This movie is none of the above.

Normally I don't bother with writing bad reviews for films but I can't believe this one is resting at a comfortable 7 on IMDb. It doesn't deserve it.

After a so-so opening daylight attack by a monster created by, what else, chemicals dumped by lazy scientists, this movie goes absolutely nowhere and it goes there sloooowly. Basically and improbably, a girl is snagged by the monster (I'll give them points for a good creature design but this ain't no WETA creation) and her semi-comical family spend an hour-and-a-half tracking her down...in the sewers surrounding the Han river. Their search lacks any suspense-again, someone called this on par with Jaws?-and by the time they find her you realize it was all pretty much pointless. Other than that, a big bulk of the movie is committed to a government quarantine that culminates in one funny scene involving a guy spitting in a gutter in front of a crowded bus stop.

Blech. This was bad. I'm not kidding. You want to see a rotten monster movie? Rent Deep Rising. At least you'll save 30 minutes of your life.",Negative """Foxes"" is a serious look at the consequences of growing up too fast in the 1980s. And unlike the teen sex comedies that overshadowed it (Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgement High), the movie holds up well against time.

Its theme of teen angst is as relevant today as it was 25 years ago and Jodie Foster and sk8er boi Scott Baio (remember him?) lead a fine young cast that's well worth watching.

The film follows four Southern California girls as they move through a rootless existence of sex and drugs and devoid of parents. The teens spend their days in and out of school and their nights at parties, concerts, or out on the street. Seldom are they home because instant gratification is a pill, party, or boy away.

But rather than condemning them, the film is sympathetic, blaming absent, uncaring adults for forcing the teens to grow up alone. And the charismatic cast is impossible to dislike.

The film's opening – a long and loving pan - sets the tone for what follows. We see the girls asleep at daybreak amid the objects that define teen girlhood, from Twinkies to a picture of a young John Travola, while Donna Summer's ""On the Radio"" is scored beneath.

From there the movie picks up speed as the girls head off to school and to life. Annie (Runaway rocker Cherie Currie) is the wild child who lives for the next party or pill. Deirdre (Kandice Stroh) is the boy crazy drama queen. Madge (Marlilyn Stroh) is the shy girl in over her head. And Foster is the one with the plan. It's her job to keep this crew together long enough to finish high school while also holding her divorced and desperate man hunting mother in line (Sally Kellerman).

It's an almost impossible job and one that Foster ultimately fails at.

Despite its age, ""Foxes"" remains a pleasure to watch. Dated hair, clothes, and references to Olympic skater Dorothy Hamill haven't hurt the movie.

The cinematography is simply stunning, with breathtaking filtered shots of the L.A. basin at dawn, dusk and at night. Giorgio Moroder adds a 80s soundtrack featuring the likes of Donna Summer and Janis Ian.

Perhaps the movie's biggest disappointment is that the young stars around Foster never broke out like the casts of ""St. Elmo's Fire"" (1985) or ""Empire Records"" (1995). ""Foxes"" shows why they should have. But perhaps like Bowling for Soup's song ""1985,"" they just hit a wall.",Positive "From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.

Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.

It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1.",Negative "Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves...",Negative "This movie isn't about football at all. It's about Jesus/GOD!! It's the same kind of sappy sanctimonious religious drivel you get from those arch idiots who wrestle for Jesus, or pump iron for Jesus. Yeah, Jesus was totally buffed, liked contact sports, and definitely owned a full set of dumb bells. DUHHH! This movie should have been entitled ""Hiking for Jesus,"" or something along those lines just to let the general public know that the real intent of this movie is to convert people to Christianity, and to pander to those whose brains have already been thoroughly washed in the blood of the lamb. That the title is derived from the Bible is made clear when the head coach is reading his Bible and asking Jesus for help. The recent sports movie ""Invincible"" was 100 times more inspiring than this was, and Jesus wasn't even a factor. It was just the desire and determination of an individual with a dream.

Any broad appeal as an inspirational sports movie is ultimately lost amidst all of the blatant Bible thumping and sanctimonious religious propaganda. One gets the impression that the sole message is the only way you can succeed and make positive gain is if you accept Jesus as your personal savior. But this is simply not true, and is therefore a lie being perpetuated by those who believe that it is true and want everyone else to believe it. The image of the winning athlete thanking Jesus when he wins comes directly to mind. What does he do when he loses? Does he curse Jesus? Of course not! When he loses Jesus isn't responsible. Jesus is only responsible when he wins. And the logic goes round and round and round, and it ends up exactly where the true believer needs it to be, every time!! I had to hit pause when the scene with the coach receiving a brand new truck came on so I could stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and catch my breath. Materialism is not what Jesus taught. I find it odd that most so called ""Christians"" seem to either forget or ignore this message from their ""savior,"" especially when I see a Jesus fish on the back of a huge gas guzzling SUV that passes me like I'm standing still.

Another message this movie implies is that Jesus apparently cares more about the win loss record of a mediocre high school football team that he does about the millions of starving children in the world. The final scene where the insecure and unsure kicker boots a 51 yard field goal and it is hyped up as an unbelievably incredible miracle puts the final gag me with a spoon religious red flag on this turkey. I only gave it three stars because the guy who played the black coach could actually act.",Negative """Against All Flags"" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, ""Against All Flags"" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp.",Positive "This is an amateur movie shot on video, not an ""electrifying drama"" as the DVD liner notes falsely boast. I have seen much better stuff from undergrad film students. The bulk of the story unfolds with an all-nite taxi ride around Jakarta. This movie could have been made using a single video camera, but there are a few sections where two cameras were used and the content was bounced together later. The editing is extremely rough. The final edit was probably done with two cameras, bouncing content back and forth, instead of with a proper editor. Perhaps they did the editing in the taxi too? The English subtitles were written by someone not fluent in English, e.g., ""Where you go now?"" To say the production quality is on a par with Blair Witch is generous. If you're not scared away yet, this film was an ambitious and creative endeavor, with lots of cool and funky images from all over Jakarta.",Negative "Please make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! ""Weird Science"" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...

I am ""proud"" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know...",Negative "Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes...",Negative "This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.

Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.

The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.

Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.

Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.

The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem.",Negative "This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour.",Negative "This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts.",Positive "My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy it.",Negative "This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead.",Negative "The ultimate homage to a great film actress.The film is a masterpiece of poetry on the screen.Like great poetry it is timeless.Direction,cast,screenplay,music,lyrics,in fact all the norms for movie-making are perfectly chosen to suit the message of the film.The Muslim society in India has never been presented with such respect,nobility and reality.The script is memorable in the hands of Meena,Ashok,Raaj Kumar,Nadira etc to name a few.Personally i was most impressed by the regal looking Kamal Kapoor.The master movie maker Kamal Amrohi's lasting legacy to the sub-continent.A very beautiful film on a controversial theme that makes humanity look up and face the reality of the outcasts in the world.'In ka naam? Pakeeza! haan Pakeza'.Such acting is unheard of in this age of sex,dance and pornography.",Positive "Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as ""Die Hard in a /on a."" Cliffhanger is ""Die Hard on a mountain,"" and pretty good, for what it is.

But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.

Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.

The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.

The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.

Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.

I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.

In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.

It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.

Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says ""You, stay! You, fetch!"" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.

Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.

Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men ""Retire [Stallone] when he comes down."" No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.

Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.

Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.

Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.

It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.

Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)",Positive "I cannot for the life of me explain what the popularity of the children's television show, power rangers is all about.

I never understood why unsuspecting children liked this show in the first place, since the characters seem so idiotic and not worth caring about whatsoever.

The costumes look completely atrocious, like multi colored spandex that people wear to go to the gym.

What exactly is the purpose of this show anyways, but for kids to learn how to fight to solve their problems? What is up with the awful hair cuts, and clothing on this show anyway? Not to mention this show is still playing on cable television, just to make money to teach kids how to fight each other when they disagree on a certain problem.

There's far better entertainment for today's children, hopefully they aren't as gullible as kids of the 1990s who watched this show.

Oh, and what is up with the homo erotic tension between the red and green rangers anyway?",Negative "We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide ""Infomercials"" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.

No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.

So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty.",Negative "Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer give solid performances in this beautiful but empty film. The irony is that Dietrich plays a woman with a beautiful but empty life. Truly gorgeous cinematography and sets, and yes Dietrich's bottomless trunk of clothes are also fabulous. She look great; Boyer looks young and trim.

Story of a woman seeking meaning and an ex-priest seeking life seems pretty stale, but set against such unreal sets and skies it somehow works, given the two stars, the terrific score by Max Steiner, and a good supporting cast. The film runs like 76 minutes and seems badly edited, plus certain characters just appear or disappear.

Joseph Schildkraut is funny as the Arab guide, C. Aubrey Smith is the old priest, Lucile Watson the mother superior, Tilly Losch the dancer, John Carradine the diviner, and Basil Rathbone plays.... well I'm not sure. He just rides in from the desert and spoils everything! As others have noted, John Gilbert was slated to star with Dietrich. I can't help but think he would have been wonderful. The role of world-weary Boris would have suited the great Gilbert quite well. And after the success of Queen Christina (with Garbo), his career might have gotten back on track.

I can't think of any other 30s film Dietrich did in color. She looks great and wears some terrific clothes. My favorite is the Valentino as The Shiek-like outfit she wears by the pool.

Certainly worth a look for the lush sets and color and the two great stars.",Positive Only on a very rare occasion does an episode of the x-files fail to generate any excitement or does the episode contain anything which is just totally boring to watch.A detective and his former partner both die in unexplained circumstances.The deaths are linked to the presence of a little girl who was there when the deaths took place.Mulder has devised a theory that a policeman murdered by his colleagues has come back reincarnated as the little girl and is exacting revenge.Now for the bizarre bit.The little girl has no connection at all and seems to just a random person chosen as the reincarnation.I think this was slightly lazy writing by the writers and this episode ranks as one of the worst in x-files history!,Negative "Ever read Jim Thompson? He's hard-boiled noir with the most extreme fatalism and misanthropy I've ever encountered. There are rarely private detectives in his work - just losers, psychotics and small-time con artists. This film has Thompson nailed - ""If God made any real mistakes in this world, it was in giving us a will to live when we've got no excuse for it."" Every character in the film balances on a razor's edge between surreal and creepy realism. There's sleazy, conniving Uncle Bud, played by Bruce Dern and spookily well-intentioned Doc Goldman played by George Dickerson. Jason Patric gives a wonderful, often heart-wrenching performance as Kid Collins, a none-too-bright, shy ex-fighter who's more scared of himself than of anyone else. Rachel Ward is Fay, the sexy femme fatale who we can't quite figure out...It's not your standard film noir, nor is it intended to be. After Dark My Sweet, along with The Grifters, are two excellent adaptations of novels by one of my favorite writers, Jim Thompson.",Positive "Squeamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy ""Worm Boy"" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation!

Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika ""Erk"" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, ""No worms were harmed in the making of this movie."" In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. ""How to Eat Fried Worms"" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.

**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould",Negative "Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a ""Green Screen"" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch.",Positive "Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.

Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to ""squeal like a pig"". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.

Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest.",Positive "As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look ""artsy"". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent ""Full Metal Jacket"", ""Deerhunter"" or ""Platoon"". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!",Negative "i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.

and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.

helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.

see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though.",Negative """Women? They're all scrubbers...!""

No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's ""Dad's Army"", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...

All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, ""The Mutations"". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair.

But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.",Negative "he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.

Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.

The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.

There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10.",Positive "If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.

Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his ""Iberia"" suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His ""Iberia"" suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted.

Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the ""story"" and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.

Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience.",Positive "For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.

Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.

It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.

Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.

The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like ""Ratso Rizzo"" in this film and then going to be the ""Rain Man"" later on. Yes, ""Ratso"" is a character you'll never forget, and ""Joe Buck"" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.

This movie isn't ""art,"" and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.

I did like the catchy song, ""Everybody's Talking'"" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name ""Ratso Rizzo"" kind of stays with you!

The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as ""official"" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.",Negative "I remember watching ATTACK when it first came out and caught it again recently. The sci fi channel has run worse, but not by much. A shameless ripoff of Jurassic Park, ATTACK substitutes sabertooth cats for dinosaurs. And they are on the loose, devouring as many extras as possible. The CGI is pretty bad, and closeups of prosthetic cat heads are laughable. We get some gore, which helps a little. Wait until you see how the mad scientist who started this whole mess gets it. Other than Robert Carradine, who has very little to do, the cast is unknown. Apparently this was shot in Fiji. Nice work if you can get it. Reminds me of all those low-budget monster STVs that were popular in the 80s and 90s.",Negative "This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.

I thought ""The Walker"" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.

The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class?

It's sad that ""The Walker"" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing.",Negative "Kurt Russell's chameleon-like performance, coupled with John Carpenter's flawless filmmaking, makes this one, without a doubt, one of the finest boob-tube bios ever aired. It holds up, too: the emotional foundation is strong enough that it'll never age; Carpenter has preserved for posterity the power and ultimate poignancy of the life of the one and only King of Rock and Roll. (I'd been a borderline Elvis fan most of my life, but it wasn't until I saw this mind-blowingly moving movie that I looked BEYOND the image at the man himself. It was quite a revelation.) ELVIS remains one of the top ten made-for-tv movies of all time.",Positive "Charming doesn't even begin to describe ""Saving Grace;"" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).

Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.

The most notable quality about ""Saving Grace"" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.

The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.

Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for ""Saving Grace."" It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that ""Saving Grace"" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.

If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.

See ""Saving Grace,"" especially when you're having a bad day.",Positive "I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in ""the family"". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as ""The Rose"". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to ""the family"". If only the script did justice to the actors.",Negative "A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.

Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.

End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.",Negative "An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.",Negative "A wonderful early musical film from Rene Clair, as fun and witty as his silent ""The Italian Straw Hat"". Using sound in a expressive way and not just for dialogue and effects, Clair influenced early musicals in America (the opera scene from A Night at the Opera is strongly influenced by Le Million, for example). Should (but won't) be seen by all cinephiles, and the DVD from Criterion is exactly as good as you'd expect. There's not a ton of extras, but most DVD extras I've seen are useless fluff, and the Clair interview on disc is one I hadn't ever seen. Get it while it's still around.",Positive "I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!",Negative "I love the music of the Clash and I love the music of Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros. I went to this movie hoping to learn about the man behind most of that. But I came out of the theatre not knowing much more about Joe than I already did after reading the entry on Wikipedia. The movie never really gets through to the person, his thoughts and feelings. What they did was to collect the little material that they had, shaky blurry videos and to interview some people about Joe Strummer at a camp fire. It turns out that most of these people knew him very little or not at all, and that the director just wanted them in the movie in order to have some more celebrities say, ""Oh, he was such an inspiration to all of us"". Like Bono or Johnny Depp (whom they seemingly asked to keep his pirate costume on to benefit from his current success in Pirates of the Caribbean). It seems that the director could not even wait until the body was cold before he jumped in to sell his version of ""the greatest punk rocker and hippie at heart"" that ever lived, sanctifying the person without really knowing enough about him.

Sure, being a fan i enjoyed seeing the images of the band, hearing the anecdotes behind the songs and such, but in the end I felt like what remained as the portrait of Joe Strummer could have easily been told in 60-90 minutes.

Go see the movie if you are a fan, otherwise better listen to some music of the Clash or even better the undeservedly unknown Mescaleros, where Joe Strummer reached the peak of his musical development before his death, melting all his rich influences together to one amazing sound.",Negative "The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. ""Don't Spill it Man !"", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.",Positive "There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled ""Baby Buggy Bunny"" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in ""Little Man"" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!",Negative "There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying.",Positive """CASOMAI"" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year.

It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.

Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like ""Don Camillo"" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)

To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the ""I do!"" day :-)

Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal",Positive "As far as films go, this is likable enough. Entertaining characters, good dialogue, interesting enough story. I would have really quite liked it had I not been irritated immensely whilst watching at the utter disrespect it shows the city it is set in.

Glasgow. In Scotland. Yet every character is English (save for Sean's girlfriend, who is Dutch). Scottish accents are heard only fleetingly in menial jobs & roles. As a Scottish woman (& as a viewer who likes her ""real life"" films to be a bit more like real life) I really don't think it would have hurt to use any one of the countless talented Scottish actors...or at least got English ones who could toss together a decent accent! The futile attempt at using the word ""wee"" a few times did nothing but to further the insult.",Negative "There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.

Father of two sons hears messages from ""God"" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.

When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.

And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class.

All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional.

This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'.",Positive "I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.",Negative "I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.

The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a ""love triangle"" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.

Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong

Things I don't like: There is a very typical ""love triangle"" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language

Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone.",Negative "This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish.

Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable.

Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person.

Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.",Negative "and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie.

What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.

What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.",Negative "Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is ""dizzy, slap-happy"" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). ""She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining,"" Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims ""I love you!"" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as ""Her Cardboard Lover"", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.

This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: ""Her Cardboard Movie"". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from ""He Who Gets Slapped"" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to ""The Women"" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.

Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in ""The Escape"" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than ""leading lady""; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's ""When I am Dead, My Dearest"" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.

**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders",Negative "I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.

Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!

Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?

Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!

Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!",Negative "When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that ""A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece."" He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of ""The Voice,"" leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner.",Positive "In ""Die Nibelungen: Siegfried"", Siegfried was betrayed. Now, Kriemhild seeks revenge. She marries Hagen, and through a series of events, finally engages in a very drastic (but fitting) action at the end.

One of the things about watching this movie nowadays is that we can look at certain portrayals. Attila the Hun (called Etzel in the movie) is shown as the strange person from the east, possibly an allusion to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it was not Fritz Lang's fault that Hitler used ""The Nibelungenlied"" for German national pride in the Third Reich, but one can see what the Fuhrer liked about the story. Nonetheless, this is an absolutely formidable movie.",Positive "I have only managed to see this classic for the first time a few weeks ago. Being made almost 30 years ago I thought the scary moments would be rather tame. Boy was I wrong. There are some great moments that sent shivers down my spine. Even the acting was great, Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and Donald Pleasance was superb.

On the downside it can be rather slow to start but once it gets going there is no stopping it. It makes all the copycats, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream look very tame. I can't really say it is Carpenter's best because I have not seen many of his, the only one I can remember of his is Starman (I think he made it). Halloween is the crowning achievement of the horror genre.",Positive "OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of ""less is more."" The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.",Negative "This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker.

If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that.

The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED !",Negative "Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.

Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.

What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.",Positive "Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.

I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.

First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.

So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.",Negative With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning ghosts. Eva as a ghost is pretty funny. And the other actors also do a good job. It is the direction and the story that is lacking. That could have been overlooked had the jokes worked better. The problem only is that there aren't many jokes. Sure I laughed a couple of times. Apart from the talking parrot there wasn't an ounce of creativity to be noticed in the movie. I blame the director not using the premise to it's full potential. Eva certainly has the comedic skill to show more but did not get the opportunity to do so. Overall this movie is ideal for a Sunday afternoon. Other than that it can be skipped completely.,Negative "I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse.

Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.

The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.

The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.

First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.

Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.

The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension.",Negative "After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!",Negative """If I sit down I will never stand up again"", that's what the mother (the one of the title) says to his son when he tells her to get some rest (she's just widowed). He means that resting is what a woman of his age and in her situation has to do: to rest in peace, to neglect herself. But she's not in the mood for ""resting"", not yet. She also has a daughter who reproaches her for each and every disasters in her life... Suddenly, the revelation comes: sex and passion in the figure of a muscular carpenter 30 years younger than her (Daniel Craig, the brand new James Bond) when she ""thought nobody would ever touch her again"". It is a story that makes you reflect on many things, specially on what's a 60 something woman is supposed to do with her life when his husband dies. It doesn't look that we've advanced that such in those aspects. I mean, nobody's surprised when Sean Connery has a love affair in a movie with Catherine Zeta Jones... but what would you think if it was otherwise? An old woman, a young guy... nah, you ain't ready for that, are you?

The movie has intimist tones all along its length, except for 2 or 3 sequences in which that tones breaks and out comes some explicit and foul-mouthed dialogs. Those vulgar touches and the way the son and the daughter find out their mother's love affair (pretty absurd -you'll know what I mean when you watch it-) are the only discordant elements in ""The Mother"".

*My rate: 7/10",Positive "This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.",Negative "Revenge is the theme of this Denzel Washington thriller that offers its share of action, mayhem, murder and grisly bloodletting. The essentials are a bodyguard's search and destroy mission as his charge, young Dakota Fanning, is kidnapped from school, which is exactly what Washington was hired to prevent. The Mexico City locations are as chaotic as the storyline moves towards its predictable, violent conclusion, with plot twists along the way. Washington, a former CIA operative with a drinking problem, gets a good reference from a former fellow agent which sets in motion the plot's outline. Washington and Fanning have a great chemistry between them and after a troublesome beginning, the bodyguard and his charge become the best of friends. Christopher Walken, Rachel Ticotin, Radha Mitchell, Giancarlo Giannini and Mickey Rourke comprise the good cast in support of the two stars.",Positive "The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just ""showing up"" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't ""bad"". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.",Negative "As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair ""off"". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.

All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead",Negative """I have looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful,"" proclaims one of the main characters in ABC's award winning television show ""Lost"". The series could be summarized as a drama story about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an unknown island, but that would be doing the show a disservice. ""Lost"" follows a large group of characters who come into conflict with the island, each other, and ultimately themselves as they struggle with their new way of life and their dependency on each other. The situation becomes more complicated when it becomes clear this isn't an ordinary island, either - and that they may not be alone.

My initial fear after hearing the concept of this series was the lack of new stories they could tell us after a certain period, but this proved to be unfounded. The narrative flows naturally, the dialogue is witty, the characters are memorable and the execution is superb. The island is a character all on its own, and to understand this comment you'd have to see the series for yourself, which only goes to show its originality and greatness.

At the time of writing this review, only the first two seasons have aired, and they're filled with strong episodes. My only mild criticism is that the second season seems to slow down a bit halfway, but then fortunately comes back in admirable shape for the final episodes.

If I can recommend one television series you should be following right now, it would certainly be this one. If you like excitement, adventure, character driven stories, an extremely strong cast and crew, beautiful locations, and an island that seems more spiritual than natural, ""Lost"" is for you. Just be sure you start at the beginning.",Positive "Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A",Positive "This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen?",Positive "When I saw this ""documentary"", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this ""documentary"", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch ""Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation"", Made by Discovery channel and BBC.",Negative "I had heard this film was a study of a landscape photographer's art by presenting the beauty in man's deconstructing the natural landscape. It certainly showed the laborious activities to find locations, setup shots, and capture stark images whose final destinations were art studios worldwide. Put together in moving pictures it is truly a horror show.

This film oozes by you supplanting the shock of ghastly images with gentle waves of a wonderful industrial soundtrack that guides you like on slow moving river. Each sequence stands on its own, but in combination you get deeper and deeper into the feeling of overwhelming inevitability. There are few words, this allowing the grandeur in what is shown to preach in its own way. An awful, massive factory filled with human automata who live in hopelessly lifeless dormitories. Individuals dying early while rummaging for recyclable scraps in mountains of our E-waste. The birthing of gigantic ships and their destruction by hand in giant graveyards. The construction of the Three Gorges Dam, the largest industrial project in human history and likely for all time. The time lapse as a city dies and is simultaneously reborn into a replica of modernity that purposefully destroys all relics of the culture that was.

The most terrifying image for me was a dam engineer explaining that the most important function of the dam was flood control. The shot shifts to the orchard behind the spokesperson where you witness the level of the last flood by the toxic water having eaten the bark from the trees, demonstrating that nothing but the most hideous vermin could be living in the waters.

The obvious not being stated is far more powerful than your normal preachy Save the Earth documentaries. The artist Edward Burtynsky explains the method wonderfully. 'By not saying what you should see … many people today sit in an uncomfortable spot where you don't necessarily want to give up what we have but we realize what we're doing is creating problems that run deep. It is not a simple right or wrong. It needs a whole new way of thinking'. The subtlety of this descends into an either/or proposition, but the film images scream that the decision has very much been made in favor of the dark side.

Though never stated directly in any way, as the waves of what you witness wash away from your awareness and you contemplate, there is only one conclusion possible … we are doomed. The progress of mankind that is inexorable from our natures leaves behind carnage that this artist finds terrifying beauty in. What he is actually capturing are the tracks of we the lemmings rushing unconsciously toward our own demise. Unlike most films with environmental themes, this one ends with no call to arms. It argues basically what's the point, but makes certain you place the blame properly on all of us equally.",Positive "This one took me by surprise because i had often been disappointed by Adrian Pasdar in the past, but he caught the perfect balance in this performance, avoiding both farce and pathos while delivering humour and real emotions. The always-wonderful Julie Waters is terrific here, and anyone who has not yet scene her in 1983's Educating Rita should rent it immediately (marvelous film). The rest of the supporting characters are well-played as well, many marvelously eccentric without going over the top. This one is fun.",Positive "I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!

Final Query:

Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.

DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!

Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.",Negative "Normally I wouldn't feel qualified to review something I only saw a half hour of, but I'll make an exception for this one.

Let the dialogue speak for itself! Here's some of the bad guy's lines: ""I smell...teacher!"" ""Sorry, teacher! You get an 'F!'""

Bad guy and bad girl ( right after killing 2 cops and stealing a van full of drugs, they're getting hot and heavy):

Him -""So how do you feel about shooting some innocent bystanders?""

Her- (purrs) ""You sure know how to show a girl a good time..."" One generic kid who ran for his life instead of helping someone, gets to sum up his life and personality in this line -""I AM a CHICKEN-TWIT! (this was the USA network version) My old man was right! No wonder he left us..."" Boo-hoo.

(Not actually a spoiler ) Bad guy (on fire) screams ""Aargh! Fire!""",Negative "A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, ""The Dealers"" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away.",Positive "Oh dear me! Rarely has a ""horror"" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.",Negative "With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional ""chocolate soldier"" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian ""aristocrat"" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, ""Arms and the Man"" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is.",Positive "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I also work in an acute care medical facility. Over the years I have seen people die from hemolytic reactions to blood transfusions, have attended numerous conferences on blood born pathogens, and have seen several patients become seriously ill from pathogens induced by transfused blood. I have also heard several Jehovah's Witnesses being told that they will die if they refuse blood and after 26 years in the field I have never actually seen it happen, leaving the question, ""is it really unreasonable to refuse blood transfusions or is the community at large benefiting from the battle on this issue?"" The issue for Jehovah's Witnesses is a moral one. ""You must abstain from blood"" is not an ambiguous statement. Thank you for this movie and allowing comments on it.",Positive "I had high expectations following ""My Beautiful Laundrette"", ""Bend it like Beckham"" and (less so) ""East is East"". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.

Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a ""those were the days"" soundtrack, and lots of ""issues"" in an attempt to be worthy.

I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.

Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual ""BBC comedy"" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. ""Bend it like Beckham"" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.

In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.

",Negative "I sit through movies like ""Tiempo de valientes"" and I want to talk about cinema for hours. The admiration this movie caused me is beyond my own limits of explanation, because I'm watching the scenes of the film and I search inside my thoughts for film-making ideas and dialogue innovations that could emerge from something bigger than Damian Szifron's mind.

Looking the environment, so uncompromised, so simple, I'm thinking; this man is a genius. No wonder he created what is probably the best television show Argentina ever witnessed, and then a first movie full of elements some contemporary directors haven't still achieved. ""El fondo del mar"" is the name and, it awakened (a few years ago), my enthusiasm for our everyday cinema.

Starting his journey from people's daily real lives, Szifron goes where Pablo Trapero never could in ""El Bonaerense""; the Federal Police Department's life. Trapero's film was a journey into a man's mind and experiences, not into the places he saw. Yes, there was a detailed training and lots of crime situations, but Szifron in ""in there"", his is more of a detective story, like the ones we know and love, with the mysteries and the thrilling music.

But there's a lot of humanity in his writing, and he shows us his investigation through the eyes of his main characters, Alfredo Díaz and Mariano Silverstein. There are a lot of actors of great caliber in the film, but these two actors are the ones the film can't do without. The first character (Luis Luque) is a detective that has just found out his wife cheats on him; and has to work on a case.

The second one is a psychiatrist that is assigned the treatment of the detective. He wants to deal with him in regular sessions but the sheriff takes advantage of the time disposition and suggests he joins Díaz in his routines: ""It's nothing, the usual stuff; no problem"". But it is bigger than that, and it will unfold a part of the doctor's personality he didn't know.

The relationship developed between the two leads can't be explained unless it is observed, because it regards such a complexity that demonstrates how talented are some men like Szifron that are trying, today, to leave a signature in our history. Reaching points of unbelievable spontaneity, during a high pressure situation, Díaz tells Silverstein: ""How do we continue our treatment?"", and Silverstein answers: ""No, I'm not your doctor. You call me to have dinner; I'm your friend"": we laugh because we can't help it.

And we can't help laughing when Díaz crashes a car in the street and doesn't gives importance to it, or when he trespasses all the red lights in the street, or when he smokes pot in his police patrol and Silverstein can't believe it (but then smokes it too because he's screwed up); or when Silverstein tries to be friendly with Díaz's robber friends. Magic from Diego Peretti is what we receive there. He, a psychiatrist himself, gives a performance in plan ""Locas de amor"", but impresses with all his range. Luis Luque on the other hand, is back on track with a top-notch portrayal that reminds us the great actor he is.

There's a passion I have for this, and as I said, I could write about it for hours, but unfortunately that's not the way it works and I have to be precise and summarize. Although I have to watch a lot of the old movies and study them, I could assure that ""Tiempo de valientes"" is the comedy Argentina had been waiting for and never got…Until now.",Positive "Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of ""The Stage Manager"", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.

This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.

Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.

It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about ""Our"" town, this is moral diction aimed at ""Our"" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.

I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.

Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the ""right sort of people"", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been ""Any Town"", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.",Negative "Primal Species comes from B Movie legend Roger Corman and as such everybody who watches this needs to realise that this is a Low Budget B Movie and it knows it.

A bunch of terrorists high-jack a Lorry and kill an entire army doing so, they believe it to hold uranium, but No..... It contains two Dino's with a taste for Human Flesh... Then a Crack team, who might as well be called Delta Force get called in.

OK, This ain't Jurassic Park, and Yes The Dino's are never clearly seen because it's obviously a guy in a Costume that's not too dissimilar to Barney the Dinosaur - only slightly LESS terrifying,but come on guys this had about 1% of Jurassic Park's Budget and as such does what it can.

Does this deserve to be in the bottom 100?....HELL NO!!! I think the nearly half of voters who give this a 1 - are being WAY WAY overly harsh, it's much closer to a 4... it's actually a lot better than a whole host of other movies not in the Bottom 100, and has a similar production value to a Sci-Fi Channel Production. (again Movies which get a overly harsh time from critics here on IMDb)

The acting is as expected in a B Movie although none of the actors take it that seriously, neither does the script

All in All it's an enjoyable B Movie - Not for Film Snobs

** out of *****",Negative "Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like ""Tarzan"" and ""The Emperor's New Groove"" have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. ""Atlantis"" is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.

But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of ""The Little Mermaid"" et al.

So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's ""Titanic"". Both films feature a boat in some manner.

And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, ""The Little Mermaid"" (A good thing).

You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths – a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale – need I go on?

I don't know why this got to anyone – I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.

But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent ""Titan A.E."" down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, ""Nadia"", for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.

With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.

Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).

This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film – after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film.",Positive "I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.

including but not limited to ""allright lets see what these guys can do"" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.

Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks.",Negative "The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the ""knowledgeable"" personnel (insider) of the film.",Positive "Jeff Wincott is not only a Hunk, he can kick butt! This movie has some of the best Martial arts moves I've seen in a very long time. Ok, so maybe Bridgette Nielson isn't the first person I'd hire to play a ruthless politician, she did a GREAT job nontheless! And let's not forget that Wincott has a partner in this movie played by Martial arts expert/stuntwoman Karen Sheperd. So she's not Cynthia Rothrock, Who CARES?! She's just as good, if not BETTER! (just check out her fight scene at the end of the movie, one word: OUCH!!). My suggestion would be to buy this movie as soon as possible, because if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on some great martial arts action.",Positive "I wasn't expecting the highest calibre of film-making with Joel Schumacher directing this one, so I was surprised that TIGERLAND wasn't a complete waste of time.

In technique, it's often derivative of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with the shaky camera work, grainy shots, the film occasionally running like it's skipping a sprocket---all those techniques Speilberg used to make his film seem more realistic but in the end was more distracting than anything else.

But unlike SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the emotional component wasn't as weak, as the characters in this film seemed more like real people and the story less contrived, not so wrapped up in the American flag (Speilberg gets an 'F' in subtlety).

Next to the first section of Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET, this is the most realistic portrayal of boot camp that I have seen in a film, and for that I think it's worth watching.

It's not a great film, but neither is it a bad film.",Positive "Re: Pro Jury

Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.

One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.

""EASILY GIVE AWAY VIRGINITY""? WHAT A SHREWD REMARK ABOUT THIS FILM. TRULY.

One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.

YOU JUST AREN'T AT ALL ABLE TO SEE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THROUGH YOUR OWN EYES? THAT'S SAD.

One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.

AND ANOTHER ""EXPERT"" OPINION DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE. DANDY.

One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.

NOW BE A GOOD SPORT AND TELL US AT WHICH INSTITUTION YOU GREW UP.

One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.

OF COURSE THERE'S PROBABLY AN EXPLANATION. GOOD JOB FIGURING THAT OUT! NOW I'LL BE GENEROUS AND WILL HELP YOU OUT OF YOUR MISERY: ALTHOUGH IT WAS TRANSLATED AS A GENERAL ""FOURSOME"", THE WORD ""čETVORKA"" HAS ANOTHER MEANING: IT'S A SPORTS TERM USED TO DESIGNATE A 4M OR 4W SETUP - A ROWING CREW CONSISTING OF 5 PERSONS: 4 ROWERS AND A COXSWAIN.

This movie did not ring true for me.

WE SHOULD ALL HEED TO YOUR COMPETENT AND PRAISEWORTHY OPINION. DUDE.",Positive "This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of ""King of Kensington"" with the belly laughs of ""The Beachcombers"". It is an embarrassment to great shows like ""Kids in the Hall"" and ""Second City"" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, ""Corner Gas"". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the ""fish out of water"" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be ""edgy"" and ""topical"", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't ""get it"" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.",Negative "I've joined IMDb so people know what a great film this is! It's not often you come across a film that's moving and visually cinematic yet humble. You've read the plot so all I want to say is don't watch it because you want to see a clash of cultural religious identity babble ,because that's the typical misconception people read in to,instead just appreciate and realise it's about a father and son on a voyage growing to know each other through their struggles. Buy it and pass it on before film4 get round to it. This was one of the very few films to be nominated for a BAFTA being independent and foreign. The beauty of it is that it manages to appeal to anyone even if you never watch anything subtitled or just used to the Hollywood formula, just a great story that will keep you engaged. The only thing I wish is for it to be longer and see what happens",Positive "Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.

We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.

soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.

Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.

firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.

furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.

The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.

enjoy.",Positive "Alain Resnais films are uncanny in the way that they aren't really edited for continuity, but instead the shot seems to finish right where a memory has edited. Love unto Death is at times a quiet existential drama and a roundly creative magical realist movie, and either way treats the audience to a whole new aspect of the Eros/Thanatos relationship... or perhaps creates a new relationship, that of Agape/Thanatos.

The beginning is like a bizarre surrealist horror movie. A woman desperately runs around the house while a man lays dying in his bed--did she kill him, or what happened? Soon that tension is dissolved as a doctor arrives and pronounces him dead, but from there a newer, stranger drama begins: the man wakes up, and after being dead the woman and man fall in love to actually quite tragic consequences. Meanwhile, their friends, who are both priests, watch on and submit their own debate into the nature of love, faith, and devotion.

Resnais always seems to have some device to make these sorts of narratives work, and what's so amazing about his films is that those devices always work. In this case, Resnais intercuts the scenes with shots of snow falling to an arousing orchestral score, which fades off and bleeds into the subsequent shots that continue the story. Trapped in this elegiac aside periodically, the film develops a rhythm not too unlike an epic poem, and I got strange flashbacks to Dante's Divine Comedy from this one, despite the lack of direct reference within the movie. Resnais is known as a very poetic filmmaker but this extends past just the cinepoem structure to something that forces a degree of introspection in the viewer, which has the possibility to bring to surface some odd recollections. Memory-narrative, Resnais creates.

--PolarisDiB",Positive "To heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for ""difficult cases."" The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.

There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: ""Be careful."" Farrell: ""It's too late to be careful."" Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.

The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.",Negative "I'm a big fan of Pacino movies. He's one of, if not the best, actors of this genre. However, this movie could've been a whole lot better even though it had a poor cast. All they had to do was tell the story of Carlito Brigante up until he went to jail. Instead it seemed like this was just one of many stories that could be told of Carlito. All or even some of the questions about his past that we wondered about in the original could've been answered. As far as I'm concerned, thats the only way you can make this movie. Instead we get this prequel that has almost NONE of the original characters in it, a character that plays a different part from the original (horrible move), and a totally different love interest for Carlito. Don't even get me started with Puffy. No way can I take that cat seriously as a gangsta after watching him dance in all his artists videos. Evertytime that dude opened his mouth I was waiting for him to start dancing. He made me laugh if anything. Mario Van Peeples surprised me with his role. I thought he was gonna give a lackluster performance due to his recent history. He did rather well. He was probably the most ""believable"" out of the entire cast in my opinion. Jay Hernandez did his best but doesn't have the skills right now in his career to take on this role. I appreciated his energy and his efforts though. Hard to follow up Pacino. The only way you could even have a clue about what kind of person Carlito was, is to watch the original. Otherwise, Carlito looks like a cold blooded killer in one scene then a spineless wimp in another. He was one of the baddest gangstas of his time but you would only see flashes of that in this movie. Maybe this is a pitiful way for Hollywood to try and make a 2nd prequel to cash in on this failure. Wouldn't surprise me.

Overall, in my opinion, this movie fell well short or what it could've been. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because I laughed a lot and Mario Van Peeples earned some respect back with me. A serious director should've taken this movie and actually put time into the story and turned it into an actual prequel. I'm extremely disappointed that this movie wasn't taken seriously. They would've been better off making this into a mini-series on HBO and actually telling the story like the original suggests. At the end of the movie, they had the nerve to suggest that Carlito would have to come back to the city. HEEELLLLO....thats the part everyone wants to see!!! Then again, this is all just my opinion. I can't tell you how to waste your money.",Negative """Sasquatch Hunters"" actually wasn't as bad as I thought.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling into the woods, Park Rangers Charles Landon, (Kevin O'Connor) Roger Gordon, (Matt Latimore) Brian Stratton (David Zelina) Spencer Combs, (Rick Holland) and his sister Janet, (Stacey Branscombe) escort Dr. Helen Gilbert, (Amy Shelton-White) her boss Dr. Ethan Edwards, (Gary Sturm) and assistant Louise Keaton, (Juliana Dever) to find the site of some reputed bones found in the area. When they make camp, the team discovers a giant burial ground and more strange bones littering the area. When members of the group start to disappear, they start to wander through the woods to safety. It's discovered that a Sasquatch is behind the killings, and the team band together to survive.

The Good News: This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The movie really starts to pick up some steam at around the half-way point, when the creature attacks. That is a masterful series of scenes, as the whole group is subjected to attacks by the creature, and the suspense throughout the entire play-out is extremely high. The wooded area is most appropriately milked during these parts, heightening the tension and wondering when a single person wandering around in the forest will get their comeuppance. Also spread quite liberally through the movie is the effective use of off-screen growls and roars that are truly unworldly. They really do add much to make this part so creepy, as well as the other times the growling shriek is heard. It's quite effective, and works well. It's quite nice that the later part of the film picks up the pace, as it goes out pretty well on a high note of action. One scene especially I feel must point out as being a special scene on first viewing. As a man is running through the forest from the creature, he spots the expedition that has gone on looking for it. Raising his hands to holler to them for help, the second he goes to announce his presence is he attacked from out of nowhere and killed quite hastily. It caught me by surprise and actually gave me a little jump on first viewing.

The Bad News: There was only a couple things to complain about here, and one is a usual complaint. The creature here is mostly rendered by horrible CGI, which made him look totally ridiculous and destroys any credibility it might've had. The air of menace conjured up by the opening of the film is almost shot out the window when the creature appears on screen. It's so distracting that it's a shame a little more work wasn't put into it. I've complained about this one a lot, and is something that really should be done away with, as it doesn't look that realistic and is quite fake. Another big one is the off-screen kills in here. Very often in the film is a person grabbed and then yanked away, and then finding the bloody body afterward. It's quite aggravating when the kills look nice and juicy afterward. Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one, as everything else that's usually critiqued about this one didn't really bother me, but it is called on for others beyond this stuff.

The Final Verdict: I kinda liked this one, but it's still not the best Sasquatch movie ever. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, and if viewed that way, it's actually quoit enjoyable. Fans of these films should give this one a look, and those that like the Sci-Fi Creature Features might find some nice things in here as well.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and some graphic carcasses",Positive "Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.

and

3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?",Negative "Well, Tenko is without doubt the best British television show ever, the performances, the directing, the casting, the suspense, the drama..... everything is fantastic about it.

Although the show fell a little later in its final season, this ending movie picked up the threads nicely and wove a superb story for fans of the show and newbies. I cannot recommend this movie more, find it and watch it. But I do advise watching the series first, as the first 2 seasons are even better than this fantastic movie.

An obvious (10/10)",Positive "I'm giving it only 9 out of 10, because I need to view it again, in a more current mind-frame to have a fresh perspective. What I remember is an amazing psychological thriller that dazzled my brain and my eyes when I watched it. I would watch it every time it came on HBO back in the day (probably 1990 or so). I might have even recorded it, but that recording is long gone, I'm sure.

I wrote to GreenCine to try and get this title in, they currently don't carry it. I hope I can find it at a local video store.

I would highly recommend giving it a try if you find it somewhere. It's interesting at the very least. If you enjoyed movies such as Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Gummo, or anything sort of strange and along those lines, try this one out.",Positive "What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.."" about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!",Negative "A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.",Positive "A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.

The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause – to catch the serial killer.

Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.

Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help.",Positive "The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!

2",Negative "This was recently on AMC's vibrant movie classics and I had to laugh. I had high hopes for this adventure that follows in the vein of ""Voyage to the Earth's Core"" and ""Mysterious Island"". I was sorely disappointed not only in the acting credentials but in the silly story line that reads from a five year old's comic book. Be sure to catch sight of the wires that are holding on to the Pterdactyl's wings when they grasp ""Ogar"" a half idiot pre-modern man who befriends the lost adventurers. The ending left it open for further rehashing of the same effects in ""People that Time Forgot"". Don't waste your time.",Negative "Gosha's last great film of the 1960's. A resolute stylist with a great sense of purpose to his films, Gosha teamed up with Shintaro Katsu (of Zatoichi fame) to produce this scathing indictment of mindless nationalist loyalty.

""Tenchu"" (heavenly judgment) is the word that the loyalists to the emperor yell while assassinating enemies or ""traitors"" to the cause. Katsu plays up his character' simple minded allegiance to a manipulative politician all in the name of patriotic pride. Anybody who questions the politician is labeled a ""traitor"" and becomes an assassination target.

One of the best photographed films ever, many shots are incredible compositions of form, color and light. The fight scenes are frequent and very bloody and brutal. The blood becomes a part of the color palette Gosha uses for his images. Gorgeous and disturbing. While the personal story is simple to follow, the historical background is complicated and while a basic history lesson for this time in Japan would be very helpful you can struggle through the film without it. The few drawbacks to the film are the music track, the length and Katsu's occasional scenery chewing. He has a drunken scene that's way over the top for a film but actually a very accurate depiction of a drunk.

Downbeat but one of the great chambara films.",Positive "I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present.",Positive "Uta Hagen's ""Respect for Acting"" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.

The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.

Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.

And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: ""In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!"" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.

Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times!

Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: ""I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it.""",Negative "Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.

The last credit in this film explains its appeal - ""Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed."" A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love.",Positive "I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the ""ham"" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of ""naturalness,"" to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - ""full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."" And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no ""right"" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of ""Hamlet"" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh ""mouthed"" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.",Negative "It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.

The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.

Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film ""...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real."" Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone.",Negative "If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0)",Positive "An excellent documentry. I personally remember this growing up in NYC in the early 80's. This movie is for anyone that wasn't around during that time period.This shows the one thing the African American Gay Underclass felt was solely theirs and the love and camadrie you see is real. The people are real and sadly few are still alive as this is being written. The balls are still held but not to the extent that they were in the the nineteen eighties. That time is gone forever. This is a good pre ""homo thug"" movie. When Queens were really proud to be extroverts. Goodbye to Storyville this is another era gone but greatly documented all hail film!",Positive "Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot!",Negative "This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' ""Silly Love Songs"" is worthy of #1 status in America.",Positive "Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!",Positive "I've seen all kinds of ""Hamlet""s.

Kenneth Branagh's was most ambitious, Mel Gibson's was quick and to the point, Laurence Olivier's was the best - hands down. But now we come to Maximilian Schell's take on the Bard.

For one, this is a dubbed version of a German TV production of William Shakespeare's venerable chestnut. But if there's a slower, more plodding, more lethargic and worse-staged version out there somewhere, it must have been acted at grade school-level.

Having seen it on MST3K helps, with Mike and the robots taking jolly good jabs at the old boy, puncturing the profundity of black and white TV, Shakespeare and the wisdom (?) of Germans acting out an English play and making it look like an Ingmar Bergman reject.

Of course, the best parts are the MST riffs. Best lines? ""I'm gonna unleash the Great Dane"", ""I don't think so, 'breather'"", ""Meet the Beatles"", ""Hey, Dad, will you help me with my science project"" and, my personal favorite, during a party - ""Garrison Keillor's leaving Germany (YAAAY!!)"".

But then there's Schell, playing Shakespeare's greatest character much like a department store mannequin would, only not as expressive. No doubt he's a great actor, but here he comes off about as well as Paul Newman in ""The Silver Chalice"". Ever see that one? You GOTTA watch these two on a double-bill!

In the end, this is one instance where it's true that you're much better off to just read the book. At least the book isn't dubbed by Ricardo Montalban.

One star only for this ""Hamlet""; ten stars, naturally, for the MST3K version.

Good-night, not-so-sweet prince.",Negative "After realizing what is going on around us ... in the news .. in our homes .. the whole new world .. I remembered this show and how obsessed I was watching it every week (in my town) ..

I started looking for this series .. 3 days ago .. didn;t have luck till this moment .. and I was shocked when I read about it and about CBS ..

People, I believe they stopped the show because it's talking about something way ahead of our understanding of the new world ... it was trying to deliver a hidden message about something terrifying ..

The people who stopped it are the same who are controlling the world Now .. I remember in one of the episodes it was talking about the ONE dollar and the pyramid with the one eye ...",Positive "As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his ""slut"" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. ""The Dentist"" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out!",Positive "Reading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.

While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved this film.",Negative "I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.

All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)

Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one.",Positive "This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).

Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well – in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).

FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original!

FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand – best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945) – is himself something of a lecher.

P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now but, despite programming it three times already (with a tentative fourth one slated for next week), they have yet to show it; even so, I do have three more films of his in my unwatched VHS pile (equally culled from late-night Italian TV screenings): the three-hour epic LA CHARTREUSE DE PARME (1948; also starring Gerard Philippe), THE SECOND TWIN (1967) and THE LEGEND OF FRENCHIE KING (1971; with Brigitte Bardot and Claudia Cardinale).",Positive "Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.

Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....

The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!

Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career.",Negative "A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike ""2001"", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its ""monster"" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.",Positive "You've been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about ""femme fatale"" / ""guns n' gals"" movies! Now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries: ninja movies! Many of these I've seen before, and let me tell you, they aren't all that's cracked up to be! They usually don't stick to the point. This, among all others, suffers from no originality! What's a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in Russia? And isn't this supposed to be a ""martial arts"" movie, too? Does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you? Is blood the number one reason to love this to death? Will you waste some of your hard-earned cash over a lady singing in her see-through tank top? The answers to these important questions are found in THE NINJA MISSION, which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. For even more nonsense ninja fun, try checking out those Godfrey Ho movies put out by Trans World. You get what you deserve, and that's a promise! Recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts!",Negative "It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the ""Garcea"" series or the ""Vacanta mare"" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as ""art"". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie (""Duminicä la ora sase"") followed by another one, nice enough (""Reconstituirea""), tries to declare his film-lenghts ""art works"" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, ""Niki Ardelean"" offers again a sample of ""HOW NOT"" - this being about its only merit.",Negative "Another reason to watch this delightful movie is Florence Rice. Florence who? That was my first reaction as the opening credits ran on the screen. I soon found out who Florence Rice was, A real beauty who turns in a simply wonderful performance. As they all do in this gripping ensemble piece. From 1939, its a different time but therein lies the charm. It transports you into another world. It starts out as a light comedy but then turns very serious. Florence Rice runs the gamut from comedienne to heroine. She is absolutely delightful, at the same time strong, vulnerable evolving from a girl to a woman.Watch her facial expressions at the end of the movie. She made over forty movies, and I am going to seek out the other thirty nine. Alan Marshal is of the Flynn/Gable mode and proves a perfect match for Florence. Buddy Ebsen and Una Merkel provide some excellent comic moments, but the real star is Florence Rice. Fans of 30's/40's movies, Don't miss this one!",Positive "Having lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons.",Negative "This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a ""Columbine"" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for ""Zero Day"". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic.",Positive "This is why I still have nightmares.

This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.

A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).

The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.

Not suitable for children.",Positive "I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought ""This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life."" 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!

You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this.",Positive "I watched this movie after seeing other comments on IMDb, even convincing my wife that it was a ""unique horror movie."" I wanted to like this movie, but was unable to.

The ""love story"" was good, but the horror aspect was quite bad. If the story was just about a young man who fell in love with a girl suffering from parasomnia, then it would have been a better movie.

The care centre stretched credulity well past the limits, in fact it was quite ridiculous. The doctor happily ignors privacy laws and professionalism. A nurse goes into a room for a routine feeding of a dangerous patient (without security escort), and drops the tray and runs out of the room screaming for no apparent reason. The forensic patient (and the film's villain) is tied up in a standing position fully clothed - apparently for years? None of it makes much sense.

The movie even had some actors that I've liked in other things, such as the detectives, but still I can't recommend this movie.",Negative "Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.

'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.

The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.

Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.

While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.

Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.

'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.

*** ½ out of 4",Positive "Poor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one.",Negative "Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.",Negative "Those of you who know the group dEUS, know the lead singer Tom Barman. He directed this movie a bit like he creates music, it's a mix of everything. This is a comedy, though mostly absurd and cynical, a drama, none of the main characters have a happy life to say the least, and it does not really have a goal.

The movie starts on a friday morning in Antwerp, Belgium, with scenes of several persons, some of them have nothing in common but they will come in contact with each other during the day and night. There are several main characters: a teacher who writes books nobody reads, a young researcher with a morbid taste of death and his sister, a gallery owner, two young men constantly in touch with the law, a man who works in a movie theater and two young women. Throughout the movie there walks a man who has something to do with wind. All characters have their troubles, with their family or friends or just with life itself.

The movie is set in Antwerp and shows several beautiful shots of the city and the port. The events of the day are not easily explained, I advise to simply watch the movie, there is simply too much to tell. But I can say this, Barman has an excellent use of the camera and uses a lot of music (mostly dance music, not really rock) to set a mood, especially the party is filled with excellent music.

This movie is an experience on itself, it will not leave you any wiser about life, perhaps only that you have to live it and not waste it, or have any false moral truths.

In short, see it, it is definitely worth it!",Positive "

What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems.

The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?!

The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!

Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not.",Negative "I bought this movie a few days ago, and thought that it would be a pretty shitty film. But when i popped it into the DVD-player, it surprised me in a very good way. James Belushi plays very well as Bill ""The Mouth"" Manuccie. But especially Timothy Dalton plays a very good roll as the Sheriff. The 'end' scene, in the house of Bill is very excellent, good camera-work, nice dialogues and very good acting. Bill ""The Mouth"" Manuccie has stolen 12 Million Dollars from the Mafia. Together with his wife he lives in South-Carolina in a witness protection program. But the Mafia tracks him down, and wants the 12 Million Dollar. Bill can only trust the only person he knows inside out, himself.",Positive "Kim Basinger stars as Della, a desperate housewife with a somewhat abusive husband, who gets into trouble while she's out at the local mall doing some last minute Christmas shopping. After placing a hastily scrawled hateful note on a piece of paper and sticking said paper in the windshield of a car that took up two parking spaces, she finds out the owners of the car are the Rainbow Coilition of villains comprising of a white guy, a Mexican, a Chinese guy & a black. They confront her about the note, cap a helpless security guard, and the chase is on. During the course of the film Della will go for hunted to hunter as she unleashes her inner Bronson.

I found this to be a somewhat tense little thriller. The acting was good enough (except for a few scenes, the ""Why God why"" bit was cringe worthy in it's badness though) It comes undone a bit due to the sheer fact that the villains Della chases from/after are mind-numbingly stupid. If they hadn't had the intellect of any given ""Home Alone"" baddie, perhaps their eventual defeat would be something to savor instead of the meh reaction it evokes. The unbelievability factor I'm willing to overlook as both the director & one of the producers had part in bringing ""Shoot em up"" to the screen (a film which while throwing credibility out the window was immensely fun). This film while never attaining the heights of that film, was good in it's own rights.

My Grade: C-

Anchor Bay DVD Extras: Commentary with Writer/director Susan Montford and producer Don Murphy; a 25 and a half minute 'Making-of'; a trailer & two TV spots for this film; and trailer for Lower Learning",Negative "It really is that bad of a movie. My buddy rented it because he, well, is an idiot. But then again, I must be an idiot too because I watched the whole damn thing! The actors were on par with high school drama geeks who think that are going places. The only place they will be going is back to waiting tables at Luby's. All I could think of while I was watching this ""gem"" was how it actually got made. I mean, some ""screenwriter"" actually thought that this premise was fresh, original and lucrative. Then some moron with money believed in the script so much that he decided to fork some cash over with the naive misconception that he was going to make a return on it. Actors were cast, locations were scouted, make-up artists were hired, computer animators fresh out of Al Collins graphic Design School were brought in and this turd started to take form.

There obviously were a ton of things that I hated about this move but the one thing the drove me the craziest was the overuse of music. Every single minute of this flick was scored. There was not a single break in music. And at times it was mixed higher than the dialogue, not that it made you miss some vital plot point or anything.

After it was over, we decided to watch Mystic River. It was like driving a 1980 VW Diesel Rabbit then switching to a BMW 740il. You couldn't get two more opposite movies in terms of quality.",Negative "Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.

Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended.",Positive "This is a feel-good movie and nothing more. And for that, it is great fun to watch. Sure it skims over political issues. But so what? I am sure she wasn't trying to make 'Good Night and Good Luck' here. Let's not try to make it anything else but what it is...light fare.

And very enjoyable at that!

Do we remember what 1984 was like? We've become very sophisticated according to the media as far as what we watch or not. I tend to differ on this point. Goldie knew this was fun-fluff and she went ahead and did it.

Like her lightest fare: Protocol, Overboard, Housesitter, Wildcats, Private Benjamin, Seems Like Old Times, Foul Play, Death Becomes Her, First Wives Club and the remake of Out-of-Towners, GOLDIE knows what she is doing...she plays every role for the camp that you can get out of it! Goldie just knows herself really well, and she knows what she can do really well.

She has always made me laugh cheerfully and innocently. I loved her in Laugh-In and every thing she's ever been in. She has never tried to be anything else but who she is...and that's that bubbling, giggly, girl next door who happens to be very pretty and has a smile and a laugh that will always endear me and remind me that life is pretty short and you've just got to lighten up because before you know it...you are old, wrinkled and suffering from one of life's inevitable ailments. If it even comes that late.

I appreciate Goldie for what she is: a lovable, comic actress.",Positive "This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?",Negative "Bernard Rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. Cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. But the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews: ""Tiré à Part"" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, ""une Affaire De Goût"" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, ""Pas Si Grave"" (2003) was another let-down and ""un Petit Jeu Sans Conséquence"" is as underwhelming as its predecessors. Its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way.

And however, the starting idea let predict a twirling, spiritual comedy. A couple held by Yvan Attal and Sandrine Kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. To play with their guests, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't surprise them. The two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple.

In spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. The plot follows a well-worn pattern with characters who have specific well-known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. Verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. A bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from Rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. Even the actors' sincere input in the venture is debatable. They seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.

It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as ""un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence"" bears witness.",Negative """One shot, one kill, no exceptions."" A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans.",Positive "I couldn't believe my eyes once I've watched this movie. There's no point in it either then blood and violence. Unlike other scary movies that had gore and a meaning to it this movie is just blood, gore, and killing one after another. This movie isn't interesting at all, has no meaningful plot or story line, nor does it have an intelligence in it. The blood looks very fake and this movie overall, is pointless. Don't even waste your time with it. It's just an hour or two of mindless violence. It has many bloody scenes that aren't scary but just plain revolting. This is probably the worst horror film I have ever watched out of all the horror films I ever saw.",Negative "I saw the The Bourne Ultimatum last summer with a friend, and, wow! I had already seen the first two films and I liked them, but Ultimatum, I loved.

Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a amnesia suffering CIA agent on the run, trying to discover who he is.

Like I already said, I loved this movie from start to finish, no plot holes, slow scenes, everything was paced just right and it fit in well with the other films, but in all senses it was much better.

Best stunts, car chases, actors, and effects I've seen in an action movie all summer, (surprisingly due to Spider-Man 3, Pirates, etc.) But I it wasn't just action in this film, Jason doesn't just kill and run. He has a soul and the audience feels for him, so drama is included. But that doesn't slow it down.

Of all the ""threequels"" that came out last summer, this was the best.",Positive "For all of the hype about this film, I kept an open mind as to what I would ultimately think. And, although a bit slow at times, the first 90% of the movie is quite good, with more than a few ""old time"" scares that make one jumpy and unsettled. I actually thought the cinematography was excellent regarding many of these scenes. Where Dark Remains fails, however, is in its climax. The ending of the film and the denouement are what seems to be MILES APART from its body. The storyline completely falls on its face with an illogical conclusion and, the answer I was seeking most - what REALLY happened to Emma? - was not elucidated upon! The rationale for the negative energy was ludicrous at best, and in the end, I felt very cheated. What could have been a superb horror film was ultimately haunted by a terrible ending.",Negative "Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.

Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.

The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.

Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.

The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.

Great family film!",Positive "As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughable

But don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the

70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line "" If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day "" . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth",Positive "obviously has some talent attached, Maria Bello is always great. but this is just a dreary wast of time, portraying every character as someone to be loathed and exploited so someone could make a movie out of an 'interesting' story. well, i hope they got it out of their systems. unfortunately for the audience, there is no insight, no sensitivity, no context, and really no humanity. which would all be fine, except it has no humor, no horror, no context, and nothing constructive to say about the story it's trying to tell. bad things happen, you sit and watch it, you don't care, so what? 99% of the time, the words 'based on a true story' constitute an unintentional warning to the audience. it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the filmmakers having to do any of the work. i hope they had a great time making this movie. it stinks on ice.",Negative "Halloween is not only the godfather of all slasher movies but the greatest horror movie ever! John Carpenter and Debra Hill created the most suspenseful, creepy, and terrifying movie of all time with this classic chiller. Michael Myers is such a phenomenal monster in this movie that he inspired scores of imitators, such as Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), The Miner (My Bloody Valentine), and Charlie Puckett (The Night Brings Charlie). Okay, so I got a little obscure there, but it just goes to show you the impact that this movie had on the entire horror genre. No longer did a monster have to come from King Tut's tomb or from Dr. Frankenstein's lab. He could be created in the cozy little neighborhoods of suburbia. And on The Night He Came Home...Haddonfield, Illinois and the viewers would never be the same. There are many aspects of this movie that make it the crowning jewel of horror movies. First is the setting...it takes place in what appears to be a normal suburban neighborhood. Many of us who grew up in an area such as this can easily identify with the characters. This is the type of neighborhood where you feel safe, but if trouble starts to brew, nobody wants to lift a finger to get involved (especially when a heavy-breathing madman is trying to skewer our young heroine.) Along with the setting, the movie takes place on Halloween!! The scariest night of the year! While most people are carving jack-o-lanterns, Michael Myers is looking to carve up some teenie-boppers. Besides the setting, there is some great acting. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job as our heroine, Laurie Strode, a goody-two-shoes high-schooler who can never seem to find a date. However, it is Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Sam Loomis, who really steals the show. His portrayal of the good doctor, who knows just what type of evil hides behind the black eyes of Michael Myers and feels compelled to send him to Hell once and for all, is the stuff of horror legend. However, it is the synthesizer score that really drives this picture as it seems to almost put the viewer into the film. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. I also enjoy the grainy feel to this picture. Nowadays, they seem to sharpen up the image of every movie, giving us every possible detail of the monster we are supposed to be afraid of. In Halloween, John Carpenter never really lets us get a complete look at Michael Myers. He always seems like he is a part of the shadows, and, I think that is what makes him so terrifying. There are many scenes where Michael is partly visible as he spies on the young teens (unbeknownst to them), which adds to his creepiness. If you think about, some wacko could be watching you right now and you wouldn't even know it. Unfortunately for our teenagers (and fortunately for us horror fans), when they find Michael, he's not looking for candy on this Halloween night..he's looking for blood. Finally, Michael Myers, himself, is a key element to this movie's effectiveness. His relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode makes him seem like the killer who will never stop. He is the bogeyman that will haunt you for the rest of your life. So,if you have not seen this movie (if there are still some of you out there who haven't, or even if you have), grab some popcorn, turn off every light, pop this into the old DVD and watch in fright. Trick or Treat!",Positive I thought this was a quiet good movie. It was fun to watch it. What I liked best where the 'Outtakes' at the end of the movie. They were GREAT.,Positive "Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.

The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.

Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.

A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.

Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.

Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.

",Positive "This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, ""I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women"" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.

Don't waste your time people. Trust me.

My rating: 0/5.0",Negative """Purple Rain"" has never been a critic's darling but it is a cult classic - and deserves to be. If you are a Prince fan this is for you.

The main plot is Prince seeing his abusive parents in himself and him falling in love with a girl. Believe it or not this movie isn't just singing and dancing. There are many intense scenes and it is heartwarming. Sometimes it comes off has funny but when it works it really works. Very hit and miss.

No one can really act in the film. Everyone is from one of Prince's side acts like ""The Time"" and ""Vanity 6"". Still, it adds charm to the movie. When ever Prince is on screen he lights it up and it fun to see him at his commercial peak.

In conclusion, go and see this if you love Prince like me. If you aren't a fan it'll make you one.",Positive "This was so lame that I turned the DVD off...maybe halfway through. It was so weak, I couldn't even pay full enough attention to tell you how far in I made it.Though I really wanted to believe that the depiction of the young Carlito would be somewhat different, I just couldn't buy it. I don't really blame the actors, because I think it was the script that may have fallen flat. I did find myself laughing a few times, but I don't think those lines were intended to be funny.

It's only saving grace is that I bought it in a 2 DVD set and I would have paid the price I did for the original alone. This is one of those cases when they should have let the classic stand alone.",Negative "This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.

Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, ""Treason"" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.

It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm",Negative "I saw Crispin Glover's ""What Is It?"" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with ""What Is It?"" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.",Negative "After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in ""Kill Me Later"". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.

I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious ""modern"" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.

There are a couple of good scenes in ""Kill Me Later"" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10",Negative "This was a very good movie and is absolutely unfair to judge it without taking into account the time when it was released. There are some movies which do not get older but this is clearly out of date. However, I saw this film when I was a boy and for more than twenty years both the images as the story were unforgettable for me and most of my friends, until we could appreciate it again on DVD. Actually, I do remember this movie as the topic of several chats and meetings where old boys were talking about things we have in common. Therefore there was a little feeling of disappoint and even sadness when we finally had the DVD. Firstly, there was a theory about how naives our generation was. Secondly, I think there is something more. I would asset that this movie has something which should be interesting for all the modern film makers, specifically those who focus on the decaying horror genre. This is the mutilation, the idea which gives coherence to the film; the fact of a human being mutilated produces a deeper horror than death and torture. I remember how sick the sensation was, when the monster rip Kurt's arm out. And at the end; when the creature bites the doctor's neck to take a piece of his veins. Another remarkable thing is the morbid atmosphere which prevails without decaying in intensity through all the scenes, no matter if the action is on a secret lab, a lonely street where the man in a car is looking for a female body, a striper dressing room, and so on. May be the reasons why it is not longer a good movie are just technical things. For example, in the scene of the accident and the man saving his fiancée's head a more accurate work, made for another and modern second unit director could be interesting. Same thing with all action scenes, including the one of Kurt's arm. Furthermore, something could be done with the monster's make up. Some remakes have been good; I think in this case an attempt would worth while. Nevertheless, the black and white tones should be conserved.",Positive "This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:

(Singing at the very beginning credits);

(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,

HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,

JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,

A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,

(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,

SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,

HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,

HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,

(CROW SINGING)

BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,

YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,

THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,

AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET",Negative "Like his earlier film, ""In a Glass Cage"", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb!",Positive "I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.

The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.

All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.

Well thank god a friend shouted me.

Avoid.",Negative "THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against ""heroic"" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.

For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.

My favorite line: ""Guess it's caused from steroids.""",Positive "Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...)

Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w

There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.",Positive "I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, ""Don't waste your money!"" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.

While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.

When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad.",Negative "This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very ""artistic"". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.

It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.",Negative "Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the ""Chosen One"".)

NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10",Negative """Welcome to Collinwood"" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.

Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.

The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.

I find that Steven ""Traffic"" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.",Negative "This movie is a touching story about an adventure taken by 15-year-old Darius Weems. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a still un-curable disease that took the life of his brother at age nineteen and is the number one killer of babies in the United States. Him and a few close friends travel across the country to Los Angeles with the goal of getting his wheelchair customized on MTV's, Pimp My Ride, one of his favorite shows. The journey begins in Georgia, where Darius grew up and has never left. The gang head west for a trip that all its participants will never forget. Darius gets to ride in a boat for the first time, ride in a hot air balloon, swim in the ocean and visit sights he's always wanted to see like the Grand Canyon and New Orleans. The filmmakers here clearly have an emotional connection to the material. They make no money from sales of the $20 dvds. $17 goes toward researching the disease and $3 goes toward making more copies. The film has won over 25 awards at festivals and I agree with the quote given to the film by Variety, ""Certain to stir hearts"".",Positive "I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to ""Star Wars"" and it's star Mark Hamill, aka ""Luke Skywalker"", who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him ""Lube Skywalker""). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film ""Laserblast"", which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always.",Negative "I can't help but laugh at the people who praise this show as heartwarming and tear-jerking. For one, it's entirely unrealistic that these people will have perfect lives after their new homes.

How can these families afford to maintain these new mega-houses? And what about their poor neighbors? Property taxes must surely increase after this happens. Plus, the noise would annoy me.

Second, how excessive can a reality television show become? It's practically the same repetitive junk week after week. We're introduced to a suffering family, they renovate the home, then surprise the family and everyone breaks out the Kleenex boxes.

Not to mention how boring the renovation part is. The only interesting part of the show is to see what the house looks like, but even that segment is destroyed by the phony confessionals and constant sobbing.

""Extreme Makeover: Home Edition"" is a show pretending to be heartfelt but it falls flat. Skip this one. If you like reality television, ""Survivor"" is far superior and moving.",Negative Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.,Positive "I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for ""a Husband"". Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better ""relationship"" stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't ""get it"" but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in ""Somewhere in Time"" you'll like him in this one also.",Positive "There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.",Negative "How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you ""Dark Angel"" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?",Positive "When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!",Negative "I've now watched all four Bo Derek vehicles directed by her husband, John; all are quite terrible, of course, but this is certainly the pits. Featuring the usual flimsy plot, bad scripting – by the director, naturally – and acting, not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star, it deals with her losing much older husband Anthony Quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired Hemingway!!) but who continues to appear and talk to her. In fact, he wants to come back in another, younger body…but actually does so only in the very last scene! Derek is lovely as always, and still playing naïve(!) – especially during a muddled mid-section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. Quinn, too, is typically larger-than-life (read: hammy) here, but this easily constitutes his nadir; besides, for much of the duration, he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo)! His 'replacement', then, is obviously a handsome-looking stud who hasn't a lick of talent or even personality. Also featured in the cast are Hollywood veterans Don Murray (as Quinn's best friend and Bo's business consultant) and Julie Newmar (as Quinn's guardian angel in the afterlife) – plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire Donald Trump (who presumably needed this on his resume')! It also goes without saying that John Derek was his own cinematographer on the film, that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand, and that GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT swept the board at the 1990 Razzie Awards!",Negative "It took a long time until I could find the title in a special videothek in Berlin, and I was lucky to find an english version with hollandish undertitles. I think it´s one of the best horrormovies ever. It seems strange for me that some people call this movie a black comedy. I must admit, I wasn´t able to laugh about, when I saw it the first time (and it was the same with the second time!) On the one hand Trelkovski seems so nice and even cute in his shy behaviour, but on the other hand he beats this boy on the playground and there is no explanation for that. But the most weired thing is of course his transformation in Simone Choule and the fact, that he doesn´t know, who he really is. His halluzinations are the most terrifying in this movie. Of course it´s all in his mind, but is it this flat that brings out this female side of him or was it also before he moved in - I think that´s an interesting question. His shizophrenic behaviour is hard to understand and it´s horrible to see his two sides or identities fighting against each other. The result of it is that he cuts his hand first and later jumps out of his/her window. But this terrible cry - does that mean, that all will repeat again and again and again... that his soul is in a cage or something? And these egyptian hieroglyphs and other egyptian stuff ? The fact, that he/she looks like a mummy in the Hospital - that´s not an incident, but a clue in my point of view.",Positive "1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite ""bad"" films and great to see with friends.

Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.

Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.",Negative "My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called ""Thatcher's Britain"", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on ""Attlee's Britain"", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, ""Kind Hearts and Coronets"" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to ""The Ladykillers"" or ""The Lavender Hill Mob"", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially ""Passport to Pimlico"".

Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico ""declaring itself independent"" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.

Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the ""Burgundians"", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.

Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in ""The Man in the White Suit"" or ""The Lavender Hill Mob"", or as part of a larger community as happens in ""Whisky Galore"" or ""The Titfield Thunderbolt"". The central theme of ""Passport"" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the ""spivs"" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a ""rules for rules' sake"" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.

I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is ""We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians"". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.

Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.

There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of ""Kind Hearts and Coronets"" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10",Positive "Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here.",Positive "Better than the typical made-for-tv movie, INVITATION TO HELL is blessed with excellent casting (Urich, Lucci, Cassidy, McCarthy, pre-Murphy Brown Joe Regalbuto, Soleil Moon-Frye) and a high concept update to the familiar Faustian plot. Urich is likable as always and Lucci is particularly fetching and devilishly over the top in the mother of all femme fatale roles. Kind of a hybrid version of STEPFORD WIVES and THEY LIVE, the movie commits early to its apocalyptic Miltonesque vision and horror fans will likely not have many complaints until the soppy, maudlin denoument. 7/10",Positive "Joe Don Baker is...Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, a pudgy, sweaty murderous oaf in a stupid cowboy suit that Roy Rogers would have laughed at. Somehow he still has a badge, probably because he lives in Texas and they'll let ANYTHING be law enforcement there.

This greasy loser is a deputy sheriff near the Texas border. Not surprisingly, he was once a Texas Ranger but got kicked out because he seemed to think that the law was his own personal bouncing ball to be played with at his discretion. This includes shooting suspects who are over the international border into Mexico, beating up on suspects, cheating in gun fights, threatening women, starting gunfights that could have been avoided AND managing to get the life of a child threatened in the process, letting women he promised he would help and protect get killed just so that he could get out of jail, etc, etc. This guy makes L.A. cops look like saints in comparison.

When his partner is killed by a pair of wandering Italian assassins, Joe Don's character hunts them down and kills one of them. Then he takes the other to Italy at the behest of a Mr. Wilson, who rightly thinks that Joe Don will screw up big time. In record time, he loses the Italian and gets a Maltese cabby blown up in the process. This is just the first of the many deaths and major destruction that Joe Don leaves in a trail behind him as he rampages across Malta looking for Palermo(the Italian assassin).

Thus begins the mobius strip part of the movie, in which our hero gets arrested, lectured by the Maltese chief of police, goes out and causes more trouble, gets arrested, gets lectured by the chief of police...and so on, and so on. Until you want to blow your brains out with Joe Don's ivory handled pistol and be done with the horror.

Joe Don proves his uselessness not just in the first time Palermo escapes, but in the subsequent boat chase in which he goes down in just one punch. Then he gets taken by Palermo after he threatens a woman with a coat hanger. You hope that Palermo will actually get to torture him in the basement cell he's put in, but no-the stripper he threatened came and got him out, because he promised to protect her. Her throat promptly gets cut(big surprise) and Joe Don escapes into the night.

And here you hope he might have been drowned in the (yet another) boat chase. But even the ocean doesn't want him, and spits him up on a shore where he's nursed by a poor Maltese family(what did they ever do to deserve that?) he returns to the city, where he's arrested by the police, lectured by the police chief...arrrgghhh! The female police officer who's been escorting him around frees him so that they can go get Palermo. Why she would do anything so brain dead as to destroy her career for this great slob is beyond me. It's just head scratchily puzzling.

They go out to the villa where Palermo is hiding, and start a shoot out. Joe Don blithely cheats, and kills Palermo. He then utters the great and dazzling last line of the movie: ""The big one has my badge. Can you go get it for me?"" Thank you for that immortal line, Mr. Baker. That will go down in the annals of movie history as the most literate, amazing, wondrous last line ever uttered by a character in a film. It certainly falls into line with everything else about the character. Bravo.",Negative "Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, ""The Sarah Silverman"" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile ""doody"" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled ""Strangers With Candy"". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential.

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds.",Positive "The movie was a big Car Commercial. :-)

But who cares? I went to the theater to view the Shelby Cobra, Angelina & Cage.

So I guess it was a good movie. *bg*

",Positive "Director Sam Fuller has something of a cult following, particularly in Europe. Yet the bulk of his films are more than forgettable. He did however direct one really terrific movie in ""Pickup on South Street"". Made pretty early on in his career, the movies that followed were vastly inferior.

From the first to the last frame, ""Pickup"" works on all levels. It's filmed with flawless fluidity, boasting fine performances all round. Richard Widmark and Thelma Ritter both players with a fine record of top notch performances, are at their peak. Widmark, who was no stranger at playing villains, while truly mean to the core, still manages to reveal just the slightest humanity which makes his character fascinating as well as making Jean Peters character's falling for him all the more credible.

Fuller holds no punches in this genuinely tough movie. There is a scene in which Jean Peters get roughed up by Widmark. It's truly shocking in its reality. This is not a case of carefully choreographed photography.

Less self conscious than many film noir's of the period this remains a great example of the genre.",Positive "Spoiler warning.

When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall.

Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.",Negative "Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid ""movie"" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps ""Home Alone 2: Lost in New York"" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.",Negative "This is perhaps the creepiest display of Santa Claus ever committed to any medium, whether it be a book, a picture, or a movie. Santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing Merlin in to help him defeat one of Satan's minions, Pitch, doesn't make things any better. It's laughable to say the least, with bad effects, even for 1959 standards. If a kid were to watch this movie, he'd have nightmares and never want Santa to visit. They'd be scarred for life. Imagine the kid's in ""A Christmas Story"" when they start screaming after being put on Santa's lap. That's how this would turn out if kid's see this movie.",Negative "Thanks to Warner Archive, I can once again see this mammoth variety show which throws in everything but the kitchen sink. (The bathtub, however is present.) This film gives screen time to every person who was under contract to Warners at the time. If some of the artists seem unfamiliar to some, it is because they were big in the silent days, and most faded with the popularity of the talkies. There are some truly remarkable artists from the vaudeville era as well. You will be most impressed with Winnie Lightner, who performs two numbers. Also there is that French star, Irene Bordoni who croons a love song in a sexy manner. Perhaps one of the biggest highlights is the two-strip Technicolor ""Chinese Fantasy,"" which has been restored for this version. It is truly beautiful and it stars Myrna Loy and Nick Lucas. Finally, there is the massive ""Lady Luck"" finale which goes on for nearly a quarter of an hour. This is truly an epic of the early-talkie era. Any old-movie buff will love this.",Positive "To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.

Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.

Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for ""musical concepts"" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.

Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, ""Norman Maine"" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer ""Vicky Lester"" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.

Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.

But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from ""Esther Blodgett"" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.

The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning ""Evergreen"" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project.",Negative "That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.

But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).

I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.",Negative "Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a ""fish out of water"" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the ""fish"" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.

(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the ""in your face"" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.)

As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).

All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.",Negative "Shower keeps within itself in so many ways. Almost all of the movie takes place in an old- time bathhouse, with the denizens supplying the humor, pathos, and emotional touches. The love and friendship between the proprietor and his retarded son is deep and moving. The way the older brother is drawn into this tiny world seems unforced and persuasive. The plot is meandering, full of surprises and ironies, and touched overall by a sense of what I'd have to call neighborliness in the relations and conflicts of the performers. This is a film I pull out when I want to believe in the world again.",Positive "The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star ""decent"" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

This genre has been more successfully handled by ""Nobody's Fool"" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) ""About Schmidt."" I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.

I'll give it an ""A"" for effort.",Positive "The animation was fab and the film funny. The two circus bugs, Tuck/Roll were very funny. If you waited till the credits at the end, you saw a very funny sequence of film, where they showed the bugs pretending to do things wrong like in other movies, that was clever as it made the characters more human and beliveable.",Positive what can i say about this film that hasnt already been said? well to tell the truth alot of it looks very fake like some of the slaps and the kicks. how charlie sheen though this was real i dont know. im sure they would be hitting and kicking her alot harder if it was. however the scenes with the pinching and the hot oil look very real. and the final needle in the eye scene is amazingly done and is probibly the only thing on film that has ever shocked me.,Positive "This movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The ""jokes"" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it ""2"" instead of ""1"", but it's definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen.",Negative """Cinema is dead, long live the cinema!"" said Peter Greenaway, one of the most innovative and productive contemporary directors, at the last year's Romanian film festival Anonimul, which got to the third edition and takes place in the Danube Delta. This year the direction prize went to Jafar Panahi's ""Offside"". I got to see it this evening in Bucharest at the festival's retrospective. Cinema is dead but still very lively. Panahi's film tells in a compelling manner how Iranian society looks. Digitally filmed, ""Offside"" is a story inspired by a real-life event happened to Panahi's daughter: the trouble and risk took when decided to attend a football match. This is forbidden in Iran as we are informed. What Panahi manages to do is to render with few means, but with, probably, a lot of work, intelligence and humor the cultural patterns in a society that places women at a distinct level. The absurdity of the laws becomes comical. The film has a happy end, after all because Iran's team goes to the World Cup. What I appreciated most was the concept, the idea behind this film. I would be very interested to see Panahi's other films that were forbidden in Iran as well. I guess that he can be thought as an activist director.",Positive "My god ! Buttgereit's masterpiece is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Closer to Peter Greenaway and Jean-Luc Godard's movies, this one is really disturbing but not gruesome as the Nekromantiks. All the little stories have a deep philosophic interest and the directing is totally inventive, in spite of the lack of money (see the ""bridge"" sketch). Highly highly recommended !",Positive "Gundam Wing is an amazing show from start to finish, every single episode is a joy to watch. The story is typical Gundam fare, in the future Earth's populations grows to the extent where we create space colonies in order to expand. The story though is set in an entirely different reality than any other Gundam show. It is the year After Colony 195 and the corrupt Earth government, known as the Earth Sphere Alliance, is violently taking over the free colonies. To combat the Alliance control and the even greater threat that is to come (an evil militaristic organization hiding within the Alliance known as OZ, which later takes control of Earth and the colonies), select members of the colonies send 5 super powerful mechs to Earth to try and save the colonies from the threat that is to soon come. These mechs, known as Gundams, fight OZ and try to regain peace in the colonies as OZ takes the front-stage, completely eliminating the Alliance and taking control of Earth and its colonies.

Gundam Wing as I previously stated, is probably the most enjoyable Gundam series to watch in my opinion. A large part of this reason is the difference between this series and any other Gundam series before it, but also the stories are far more deep and intricate than majority of the other Gundam series. Gundam Wing has more depth and emotion to it than any other Gundam show I have ever seen thus far. This particular series seemed to focus more on character and the relationships amongst those characters than epic space battle. Now don't get me wrong, this show still has many epic battles within it, and the show still maintains the epic atmosphere that other Gundam series have, but it achieves this by having the story follow an ensemble cast of 6 or 7 characters as opposed to following just 1.

No matter how you look at it this is truly one of the most unique and enjoyable Gundam series out there, and I strongly recommend it to any fan of anime, or sci-fi in general. The show sports some amazing animation and superb action, but the depth and intricacy of the story is what keeps you coming back for more. The characters are so well drawn out by the end of the show that you end up loving each and every one of them. This show is definitely one that shouldn't be missed.

A perfect 10/10!",Positive "I'm sure this was one of those ""WOAH!"" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.",Negative "Made me wish my own happy birds could talk. Tisk tisk on the reviewer who dissed the movie. A sweet story that people of all ages will enjoy. Paulie is a lovable little treasure. He has quite a few clever lines that truly made me laugh. I especially loved the dance sequences during his showbiz stint. You can forgive the obvious clichés as you cheer him on in his quest to be reunited with Marie. A charming movie featuring two strong characters who genuinely befriend the little parrot separated from his young owner. Would have liked to have seen more of the woman who becomes blind and must abandon their mutual journey. I liked her artistic and poetic inspirations, a shame she could not share Paulie's reunion. Bless Paulie in his new home, at last with Marie, perhaps joined by the nice young man who helped him defeat the antagonists to complete his journey.",Positive "I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.",Negative "Great western I hear you all say! Brilliant first effort! Well I'm not sure what film you all watched but it must have been a different one to the one I saw. Great westerns or indeed good films of any genre have characters you can believe in and this film had none! The acting was poor to say the least and I couldn't care less about any of the characters, making the whole film pointless. the story was too big for the makers and perhaps they should try their hand at making straight to TV low budget rubbish like you see on those ""FACT OR FICTION"" programmes on sci-fi.

Please, if you are looking for a good film, a great western or even just an enjoyable hour and a half, please look elsewhere.",Negative "Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll

kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll

even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when

you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make

your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just

dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They

try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they

have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as",Negative "I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of ""indie"" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.

Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a ""small"" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.

The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. ""I can't talk to the man,"" Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. ""You'd better learn before winter,"" replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).

Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.

We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.

This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten.",Positive "I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. ""It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it,"" she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.

*****SPOILER*****

Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.

*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.",Negative "This is probably one of the most original love stories I have seen for ages, especially for a war based (briefly) film. Basically it is a story based in two worlds, one obviously real, the other fictitious but the filmmakers say at the beginning that it is only coincidence if it is a real place. Anyway, Peter Carter (the great David Niven) was going to crash in a plane, he talked to June (Planet of the Apes' Kim Hunter) before he bailed out and said he loved her. He was meant to die from jumping without a parachute, but somehow he survived, and now he is seeing and loving June in the flesh. This other place, like a heaven, is unhappy because he survived and was meant to come to their world, so they send French Conductor 71 (Marius Goring) to persuade him to go, but he is obviously in love. Peter suggests to him that he should appeal to keep his life to the other world's court, he is granted this. Obviously love prevails when the two lovers announce that they would die for each other, June even offers to take his place! Also starring Robert Coote as Bob Trubshawe, Kathleen Byron as An Angel, a brief (then unknown) Lord Sir Richard Attenborough as An English Pilot and Abraham Sofaer as The Judge/The Surgeon. David Niven was number 36 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, the film was number 86 on The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers for the happy ending, it was number 47 on The 100 Greatest War Films, it was number 46 on The 50 Greatest British Films, and it was number 59 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding!",Positive "I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed.",Positive "BASEketball is an extremely funny movie that delivers acting that generally makes the movie alot funnier,comedy material that is more than crap in your pants funny,and a pretty good plot despite the fact that its the classic slackers v.s the evil rich guy.The one and only thing I didnt like about BASEketball,was that that kid wasnt really needed in the movie,but,if the kid wasnt in the movie,some of the funny scenes wouldnt have existed.If you have read any pro reviews about this movie,exclude them all because basically all the reviewers didnt like this film.BASEketball is a great comedy that gives everyone what they want.8 out of 10.",Positive "I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.",Negative "If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!",Positive "A man wakes from a nightmare about bats. He and his wife go out into the desert for a picnic on their honeymoon. He seems to hear a strange noise, and she is disturbed by the sight of a bat crawling across their picnic blanket. He wants to go on a tour of a cave, which has something to do with some kind of work he is doing, but she wants to enjoy their honeymoon. She relents. They go on the tour, but leave the group to make out. She falls down a slope, where she is disturbed by insects. He follows her. He hears the strange noise again, and seems to know a bat is approaching; one does, and gets in her hair. He fights it off her, and it attacks him, biting his forehead.

They get out of the cave, but when they are in a gondola at a ski resort, he starts having seizures in which he has hallucinations or visions of bats attacking people. He becomes angry when this happens. He's unable to drink alcohol without spitting it out. His wife worries about rabies, and he starts a Pasteur treatment for that, but reacts violently to the injection.

And then some people are killed. We see parts of the man's transformation into a bat person. It seems it is not just in his mind. Whether the bat bite causes these transformations is not clear, since he already was having some symptoms prior to the bite.

While the title seems inappropriate, the implication at the end is that the same thing is happening to another person. Not a very good movie, but I liked the variety of the desert, cave, and ski-slope locations, and some of the weirder scenes. I didn't think this was as bad as other people do, and I didn't think the 1999 movie Bats was as bad as others think either (I rated that one a 5/10).",Negative "Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.

Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.

This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.

Yes, it's that bad.

I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.

Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.",Negative "the movie is great, like every other international project that includes strong impressions. three of them (israel, bosnia and egypt) should've been cut out. especially bosnian clip, which is pathetic beyond all reason, and doesn't contain a single original thought or element on it's own. everything else is really great, unrecognizable for most of americans, known for the rest of the world. unfortunately, clips speak about misery of the people all over the world. and, as i see it, there are so many of those who won't give a damn about it...

top 5: 1. loach 2. penn 3. inarritu 4. lalouche 5. imamura",Positive "You want to see the movie ""THE Gamers"" by Dead Gentlemen Productions. This is not that movie. This movie is not funny. It is a waste of time.

All of the good comments here seem to be written by (poorly disguised) false third parties. The people who made this movie seem to be attempting to synthesize fake interest.

This movie is not a well done mockumentary. Comparisons to ""Spinal Tap"" or Christopher Guest are insulting.

The movie is so mean-spirited that I cannot imagine anyone familiar with the subject matter finding it funny. Being able to laugh at yourself is an important quality, but if you are the ones being lampooned in this manner, you'd have to hate yourself to enjoy it.

The movie is not offensive because of its grand satire of taboo topics but because of its constant pathetic banality.",Negative "While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.",Negative "It came by surprise. . .the impact & resoloution this film had on my automatic way of being reactive to people & situations. Most vividly was the stirring of the emotion anger. Much like the way a spoiled child would be when reacting to not getting their way. . .a temper tantrum if you will. Thinking I was hiding this anger from others was the most ridiculous farce of all. What was this costing me? Soooo much love. . .sooo many blessings. Now I'm present to how incredible humbling myself feels, and having an ongoing attitude of gratitude for life. . .for what is happening in the moment, without my wild expectations for life to be a particular way, the way I think life or people ""should"" be. This film has contributed to the freedom I now feel to connect with others, without limits & expectations. . .and to connect with genuine love. . .without fear of loss. . .just to love first, and accept what love is given.",Positive "I noticed that A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are in the TOP 10, but that this one isn't even in the TOP 100.

This movie has a bad reputation because of Ewoks, but there are so many reasons to love this movie:

-The Rescue of Han Solo from Jabba: This official wraps up the Han Solo in debt sub-plot that was established when we first met the character in A NEW HOPE.

-The Emperor was Finally Revealled: Well alright this might not work as well now that the prequels are out but this was the first time we saw The Emperor as kids.

-The Speeder Bike Chase: Alright, so this was a special effects moment. But it was definitely one of the most memorable and exciting moments in all the films!

-The 3 Part Climax: 1) The Battle of Endor (Led by Han and Leia) 2) Luke Confronts his Father & The Fall of the Emperor 3) The Destruction of the Second Death Star (Lando's Moment)

-The Final Celebration with Our Heroes: Like I said, this movie gets a lot of crap because of the Ewoks but I think it's kind of cool that while the entire galaxy celebrates the FALL OF THE EMPIRE, our heroes are having their own private party in the woods with each other.

All in all this was a great final chapter for our heroes and a fitting end to the STAR WARS story.",Positive "I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).

Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.

However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the ""Swallow"" and ""Gunnerside"" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.

The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history.",Positive "DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part

!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!

What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced

There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case

There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb",Negative """Home Room"" like ""Zero Day"" and ""Elephant"", was inspired by the recent wave of school shootings. But unlike the other two films, ""Home Room"" focuses on two survivors (not the shooters or those killed) in the aftermath of a shooting. Making it less exploitive and more useful because little effort is wasted in asking questions for which there are no answers.

Don't give up on this little film during the first 20 minutes, it is supposed to set up the real story but plays like a rejected ""Hill Street Blues"" episode. It is lame but bear with it, at least it pads the running length enough to get the film classified as a feature. I recommend skipping this entirely and just jumping ahead to the hospital scenes-there is nothing here that you can't pick up from the remainder of the film.

Like a lot of good little films this was creatively a one-man show as Paul F. Ryan was both the writer and the director. While this arrangement does not guarantee a good film, it is usually a good sign because it will mean a certain unity of construction and execution that is often lacking in big budget dramatic features. Because the script of ""Home Room"" is its real strength it is fortunate that the writer also executed the production and insured that his vision made it onto the screen.

Ryan takes a huge chance with the ending which tests the limits of the average viewer's sentimentality tolerance. He runs it right up to the edge but against all logic leaves you crying instead of cringing. Why the ending works is some combination of the audience need for a reward at the end of this kind of journey, the song (Sarah McLaughlin's ""Sweet Surrender"") he goes out on, and the amazing editing of the final minute.

The other strength of the film is the casting of Busy Phillips (Alicia) and Erika Christensen (Deanna) as the main protagonists. Although Phillips plays her standard alienated surly teen and Christensen her intelligent daughter of a good family, they both bring more intensity to their roles than ever before. The family life of both girls is more than satisfactory and of little interest to Ryan. What is happening here is all about the two of them despite a lame side story about a police detective wondering around town trying to tie Alicia to the lone shooter. If they ever re-cut and trim the film this side story should be condensed.

A story about two extremely disparate girls bonding and helping each other is hardly a novel idea and Ryan could have easily steered this film into cliché and predictability. But instead his script has them engaging in a fascinating and convincing sparring match, slowly chipping away at each other and sharing moments of vulnerability, only to retreat back inside themselves. Deanna's ""I'm dying inside"" line just tears you apart-I can't think of a moment in any other film that I felt as intensely as that one. She desperately needs a connection that Alicia just as desperately resists. Deanna only makes progress when she retreats. The viewer keeps expecting the group hug that never seems to happen.

Ultimately this not only generates a lot of suspense but leaves you admiring both characters and the two actresses who brought them to life.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.",Positive "Summary- This game is the best Spider-Man to hit the market!You fight old foes such as Scorpion,Rhino,Venom,Doctor Octopus,Carnage,...And exclusive to the game...Monster-Ock!Monster-Ock is the symbiote Carnage On Dock Ock's body.

Storyline- Dock Ock was supposedly reformed and using his inventions for mankind...supposedly...He was really planing a symbiote invasion! See the rest for yourself.

Features- You can play in numerous old costumes seen throughout the comics.Almost every costume has special abilities!You can collect comics in the game and then view them in a comic viewer.And last but not least..............Spidey-Armour!Collect a gold spider symbol to change into Spider-Armour.It gives you another health bar!

Graphics- Great!Though they they can be rough at times.But still great!

Sound- Sweet!Nice music on every level and great voice overs!

Overall- 10 out of 10.This game rocks.Buy it today!",Positive "I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.

First and foremost, a game built around the notion of ""Russian Roulette"" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a ""live"" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the ""real"" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic.

second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why ""real"" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.

(The only random thing is the ""performance artist's"" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.)

We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.

A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.

the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really?

the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.",Negative "If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great ""Rondo"" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???

Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving.",Negative "A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated ""T"" for tripe.",Negative "How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.",Negative "If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull.

For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving ""full service"" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.

The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the ""twist"" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.

The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.",Negative "Saw this on SBS TV here in Australia the other week, where it was titled ""Laputa: Castle in the sky"". I had enabled subtitles and I think SBS provided their own for that, which, as usual, was of very good quality.

Just looked up ""Laputa"" on Wikipedia and it confirms what I suspected...the floating island of this tale is taken from the classic Jonathan Swift novel ""Gulliver's travels"", which was published in the early to mid 1700s.

Anyway, this is an engaging Japanese fairytale, which features an English speaking voice-cast. It's suitable for young children, I think, but it does run at just over two hours in length, so it may be too long for some, though not for an adult like me.

The story concerns two children who seek to find a legendary floating island which has a castle on it. The children are not the only ones looking for this island. They have pirates, the army and spies looking for the island too, and looking to capture the children (Sheeta, the girl, voiced by Anna Paquin, and Pazu, the boy, voiced by James Van Der Beek) in order to help them find it.

The graphics are magnificent...sort of photo-realistic at times, especially the scenes of stonework lit by torch-light, or the pretty scenes of bright, sunny days, with white clouds, or mist.

Recommended.",Positive "A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.

This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.

I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.

Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)?

Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.",Negative "This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.",Positive "This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word ""suck"" to an entirely new level.",Negative "Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.

Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.

I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.",Negative "I came to Nancy Drew expecting the worst...because of everyone else's bad reviews. I thought: Even though I don't read the books, that doesn't look anything like the Nancy Drew I've heard of. But I was wrong. Sure, it wasn't a carbon copy of the books, but when you make a movie out of something, you have to modify it to become big-screen entertainment. The plot was enjoyable and thrilling with a lot of actual scares and I thought that Emma Roberts was really believable in her own way of portraying this classic character. There were several funny moments and on the contrary of many statements, at no point in this film does Nancy come off as a ditz. She was intelligent, conservative, polite and genuine. One thing this movie also did well was balance the whole thing out with a mix of comedy, romance, suspense and heartfelt moments. I loved this movie. What a flick, what a flick! And if you are wise and decide to trust me and go see this, be prepared for some SCARY as heck moments because I was, like, freaking out! Go see it or be a bum-bum and just let other people decide what you think of this movie for you...a mistake I almost made. I love it, I wanna own this movie! I love Emma Roberts now, too. She's like a mini-Bree Van De Kamp from DH. Love it, love it.",Positive "This quasi J-horror film followed a young woman as she returns to her childhood village on the island of Shikoku to sell the family house and meet up with old friends. She finds that one, the daughter of the village priestess, drowned several years earlier. She and Fumiko (another childhood friend) then learn that Sayori's mother is trying to bring her back to life with black magic. Already the bonds between the dead and living are getting weak and the friends and villagers are seeing ghosts. Nothing was exceptional or even very good about this movie. Unlike stellar J-horror films, the suspense doesn't really build, the result doesn't seem overly threatening and the ending borders on the absurd.

This movie is like plain white rice cooked a little too long so that it is bordering on mushy. Sometimes you get this at poor Asian restaurants or cook your own white rice a little too long. You end up eating it, because you need it with the meal, because what is Chinese or Japanese food without rice, but it almost ruins the meal because of the gluey, gooey tastelessness of it all. 3/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies",Negative "Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.

I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny ""hood"" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black ""booty"" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.

***3 out of 10***",Negative "Amazing performance from Simon Pegg who just gets better and better with every role. As usual he plays the part of a very cringy character who makes you want to hide behind your cushion in embarrassment for him sometimes, but thats what Pegg is all about.

The laughs were regular and eye watering and everyone of them aimed at Penn. The movie was very cleverly put together where every character plays a very sophisticated and serious part with Penn being the only humour involved which is a huge credit to the Director Robert Weide.

And I cant let this one go without a quick round of applause to Gilliam Anderson who shone throughout. Highly recommended to all.",Positive """Come Undone"" appears to elicit a lot of opinions among the contributors to this forum. Granted, it's a film that promises a take on gay life, as most viewers expect and somehow, it gets away from that promise into an introspective view at a young man's soul. The film has a way of staying with us even when it has ended. It is a character study about how a young man gets involved into a love affair with someone so much different than him that, in the end, will leave Mathieu confused, hurt and depressed when things don't go according to what he hoped the relationship would be.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.

Sebastien Lifshitz, the director of the film, has told his story from Mathieu's viewpoint. Most viewers appear to be disoriented by the different times within the film, but there are hints that are not obvious, as one can see, in retrospect. The story is told in flashbacks that might add to the way some people will view the film. This is a story about the doomed the love Mathieu felt for Cedric and the ultimate breakdown of their life together.

First of all, Cedric, the handsome young local, pursues Mathieu until he succeeds in convincing him he likes him. Mathieu feels the attraction for Cedric too. We realize how different both young men are by the way Cedric tells Mathieu's family how he feels school is not for him. On the other hand, Mathieu, who wants to be an architect, finds beauty in the abandoned place where Cedric has taken him. We watch as Mathieu, reading from the guide book, wants Cedric's attention.

When Mathieu comes out to his mother, she wisely tells him about the importance of continuing his career. She also points out about what future both of them would have together, which proves to be true. Mathieu appears to have learned his lesson, the hard way. He goes on to an uncertain life with Cedric and attempts to take his own life. We watch him in the hospital speaking to a psychiatrist that has treated his wounded soul.

The ending might be confusing for most viewers, but there is a moment in the film when Mathieu goes to work in a bar where we see him washing glasses and looking intently to Pierre, the young man who frequents the bar. That is why when Mathieu goes looking for Pierre at his house, appears to be hard to imagine. Yet, we have seen the way Mathieu is obviously interested in Pierre. The last scene at the beach, when Pierre and Mathieu are seen strolling in the sand, has a hopeful sign that things will be better between them as they watch a young boy, apparently lost, but then realizing the father is nearby.

Jeremie Elkaim makes Mathieu one of the most complex characters in recent films. This is a young man who is hard to understand on a simple level. Mathieu has suffered a lot, first with the separation of his parents, then with his depressed mother and with losing Cedric. Stephan Rideau, who has been seen on other important French films, is equally good, as the shallow Cedric.

While ""Come Undone"" will divide opinions, the film deserves a viewing because of the complexity and the care Sebastien Lifshitz gives to the story.",Positive "Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...

This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.

Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.

Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.

Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid.",Negative "I really like this show. I can readily see how it achieved cult status. It's original, and thought provoking. For some reason though, I have never felt the kind of resonance from it that I could have. It doesn't pack the kind of open door, winter chill that was to be had from such an awesome premise. Each time I watch an episode, I find myself prodding, and pushing for it to answer some nameless, formless question.

Before continuing, let me preface this by saying that what follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. Different strokes for different folks.

I would have liked to have seen more scenes in ""American Gothic"" that were shot at night. There's too much daylight in this show, and I think it had a tendency to counteract the suspense. We're not afraid of the daylight, after all. We're concerned about what's in the shadows. The devil isn't always in the details. What we're not seeing is often the most frightening.

Second--and this is the one that's probably going to lead to tar, and feathers: Gary Cole is a tremendously talented actor...a character actor. I've followed his career from The Brady Bunch films on, which is why it pains me to say that he was probably miscast as Lucas Buck. He's almost too petroichan, too likable to be embodiment of evil, even by Biblical standards. Lucas Buck is a narcotic. He's Heroin. He's freebasing in a kitchen laboratory next to a gallon of Drain-O. You keep going back, even though you know the end will be madness, and death. He should be like the ultimate loan shark. He's a maker of book, but also of unspeakable condemnation. Sure. You've got the money, and before long you're also going to have broken fingers; a severed hand, a decapitated head, and eventually, a damned soul. Turning to Buck is an act of desperation, and whenever he's around, there should be some immediate, ambient finality--with interest compounded daily--in the air.

It's all largess, all strings attached, and by the time you realize that, you'll also know that it's too late.

Which leads me to three: they showed Buck a little too often. He's in most of the scenes, in fact, which may have caused him to lose his edge. The sheriff would be like the next door mythology. He's the apocryphal acquaintance. Many would know 'of' him, but only an unfortunate few would really know him. He'd be the stuff of flashbacks, and cryptic conversations, and the perfect person to deliver this plot exposition would have been the deputy character that Nick Searcy portrayed.

Four, the show could be very self-reverential--to a fault, some might say--and this is typified by the whistling of ""Meet Me At The Fishing Hole"" in the series pilot. I think we've already established that what Cassidy, and Raimi were shooting for was the anti-Andy Taylor. We probably didn't need the concept delivered to us via Fed Ex. I gathered that within the first five minutes so, for me, the piano on the head was unnecessary.

These remarks are all about what, FOR ME, would have made a good show great. I also understand that the producers had their own, unique style, and that there were many hands in the soup. In their everlasting quest for LCD programming, the network played a definite role in the demise of this series.

The least these jerk-off suits could have done was to air the episodes in order.

Get real.

Either way, it's a grievous loss to both genre fans, and casual viewers alike.",Positive "Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.

From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.

Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.

The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the ""smoke monster"", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.

As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.

Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.

I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.

See this show.",Positive "Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.",Negative "My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie.

yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! ""WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!"" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad...

Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.

*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!",Negative "The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.

While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true – people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes – au contraire – but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.

Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the ""honey – I'll give you a deal"" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century.",Positive "This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.

Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.

Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.

Don't miss this one.",Positive "Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. ""Beirut""...""What do you know about Beirut?""...""Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived.""

You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.

Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.",Positive "I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was ""cool"" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.

As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job.",Positive "*Wonderland SPOILERS*

July 1st, 1981: five people, Ron Launius (Josh Lucas), Susan Launius (Christina Applegate), Billy Deverell (Tim Blake Nelson), Barbara Richardson (Natasha Gregson Wagner) and Joy Miller (Janeane Garofalo) are attacked while they're asleep and brutally hit on the head with steel pipes in their home at 8763 Wonderland Avenue, Laurel Canyon, LA. Only Susan survives.

Main Suspect: John Holmes (Val Kilmer), former king of porn, owner of a 30 cm long dick, and now a hopeless addict.

Two investigators, Luis (Frankie G.) and Sam Nico (Ted Levine), are investigating on the case and try to crack it with the help of a witness that claims to know that John at the very least took part in the murders, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), Barbara's boyfriend, and trying to get a witness report out of Dawn Schiller (Kate Bosworth), Holmes' 19-year-old girlfriend and from Susan, who sadly doesn't remember anything more than shadows about the night her husband's head was bashed in and hers almost suffered the same fate, and the name of Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian), a major drug kingpin (who is always around ladies such as Barbie (Paris Hilton)), comes into light as a suspect planner of the Wonderland massacre.

But what did happen that night? And could Sharon (Lisa Kudrow), John's wife, know something about it? 'Wonderland' is a taught, intense thriller, a desperate love story and a story of a man's sad decline all in one; there is a clever use of the 'Rashomon' technique (we see the events of that fateful day and night from the eyes of David, John, Dawn, Susan (albeit very briefly) and Sharon), a nice direction and a great script, but is mostly compelling for the performances, especially Kilmer's, who takes central stage with his hopeless, tormented, sometimes childish Holmes, Lucas', whose Launius is strangely alluring, Kudrow's strong Sharon and Bosworth's innocent Dawn.

Wonderland: 9/10.",Positive "A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.",Negative "So this was an HBO ""Made for TV Movie"" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these ""English speaking"" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.",Negative "Not only is this a great African-American classic comedy, but one of many great American cult classics.I have recently purchased the collection edition of Rudy Ray Moore.If you love the old school karate movies and black comedies, this is for you! They don't make movies like these anymore. My entire family are movie buffs, so this site is an extreme help on solving many debates. I am deployed in Iraq right now. This helps me to stay connected to world that I know in the states. Thank you IMDb.I recommend this site to all my friends. Dolemite rules! Don't just take my word for it, check them out for yourself. Ten lines is a lot for commenting on one movie I think, but if it gets the point across, I'm all for it!",Positive "I recently purchased the complete American Gothic series on DVD and it lived up to my memories of it. I was very grateful to be able to view for the first time episodes that were never televised. I loved ""Ring of Fire"" in particular of the stories I hadn't seen the first time around.

Gary Cole is fantastic as ""evil, sexy"" Lucas Buck. Lucas Black as Caleb is also a superb player. I thought Brenda Bakke as Selena Coombs was also superb in her portrayal. In fact, the whole cast was fantastically talented and had great chemistry with each other.

It's a shame the series was screwed by the network (in collusion with a burgeoning group of censors) because it was truly designed for adult viewing. A mixture of comedy, tragedy, farce, satire, Gothic romance and horror genres, it offered brilliant characterizations supported by acting at the genius level.

I had the most tremendous lust for the devil for once in my life. Long live Gary Cole (Sheriff Lucas Buck), the most luscious ""fallen angel"" ever.",Positive "The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. ""The Dukes of Hazzard"" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the ""General Lee"" is still good to go.

Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as ""Boss"" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.

** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds",Negative "This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.",Positive "Another outstanding foreign film which thoroughly trounces the never-ending crop of crud emanating from Hollywood! This is a story of life and living. No, definitely not the perfect little life so often depicted in the totally artificial Hollywood movies but rather, the real life complete with real characters each with strengths and weaknesses just like real people in our lives and ourselves.

The dynamics of all of these lives, intertwined within the walls of this bathhouse, and particularly its aged owner, are magnificent, heart touching and highly thought provoking.

Sit back, relax, and be carried away into the simple and beautiful life. There is real wisdom to be learned in this movie if you only open yourself up to it.

You will not be disappointed.",Positive "I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.

This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.

Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.

To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.",Negative "Surprisingly good. The acting was fun, the screenplay was fun, the music was cheesie fun, the plot was stupendously fun. This was a fun movie to watch and to give your brain some rest. Parts of the plot and quotes I found to be very creative. 7 out of 10. Actually for what it was, it would deserve a 10 out of 10. You are not supposed to compare this to an arthouse film or to a bloody slasher film.",Positive "Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.

1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.

I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.

every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.

The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word ""Suck"" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.

Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.

The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.

There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.",Negative "Ever since seeing this film as a child, over 30 years ago, I never tire of watching it. From the opening scenes in the horn factory, to the car motor running from the back seat of the car, to Ollie answering the phone and being accidentally pushed out the window by Stan, I think this was perhaps their best latter day film. After this they moved to 20th Century Fox, and while those films weren't terrible, they lacked the comic timing of this movie. Jimmy Finnlayson, their long time foil, in his last appearance with the boys, showing up as the Doctor is super! quote: "" I said goat milk "" his reply to Stan asking him how do you milk a ghost! Charlie Hall and even Ben Turpin show up! I'd say all in all one of my favorite L & H comedies.",Positive "In terms of visual beauty this movie is outstanding! I had no idea that Technicolor came out so early. Although I didn't like the ending, the entire movie is fantastic and makes me wish that I was in North Africa. The cast is excellent and Marlene Dietrich is a big plus and of course she is so alluring and I just loved her in this flick. Basil Rathbone is also perfect in this movie. I couldn't get over the scenery and the sets... The hotel, the palm trees, the desert, it's all there... the legionnaires also bring a ""Beau Geste"" feeling to the film. They certainly don't make movies like these anymore. Don't fail to watch this classic!",Positive "Legendary movie producer Walt Disney brought three of the world's greatest fairy tales to the screen. They remain among the most popular animated films of all time. The first was his groundbreaking classic ""Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"" released in 1937. The last was the then-under appreciated ""Sleeping Beauty"" which made it's debut in 1959. In between these two was perhaps his most satisfying adaptation of a classic fairy tale: ""Cinderella"" (1950). Of the three films, ""Cinderella"" is the one most faithful to its origins. Ironically, unlike ""Snow White"", which for better or worse, became for many the definitive version of the story. ""Cinderella"" did not follow the same path. Although it was a hit and, like ""Snow White"", was responsible for restoring the dwindling Disney fortunes, it never achieved the same audience recognition which it certainly deserved. Disney, for once, did himself proud, electing not to tamper with a classic, instead elaborating and adding substance to the tale, rather than rewriting it for the screen. The result was enchanting.

A combination of superb animation (in beautifully soft Technicolor) and the perfect voice talents brought the story to life with a radiance that endures to this day. Ilene Woods, who was a radio performer, recorded demonstration discs of the songs as a favor to the authors of the material, Al Hoffman, Mack David, and Jerry Livingston. When Disney heard them, he knew he had found his Cinderella. And indeed he had. Woods heartfelt renditions of ""A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes"", ""So This Is Love"" and ""Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale"" are perfect. Eleanor Audley, who would go on to voice Maleficent in ""Sleeping Beauty"", masterfully captured the icy cruelty of the stepmother, while Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss were convincingly nasty stepsisters. Luis Van Rooten admirably performed as both the King and the Grand Duke, and James Macdonald was endearing as both Jaq and Gus, Cinderella's devoted mice. William Phipps has little dialog as the prince (future talk show host Mike Douglas provided his singing voice) but film (and Disney) veteran, Verna Felton was born to play the fairy godmother, and she made the best number, (the Oscar-nominated ""Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo"") her own show-stopper.

Among the artists responsible for the ""look"" of the film, was Mary Blair, whose inspired use of color was greatly admired by Disney. Her elegant French-period backgrounds add tremendously to the quality of the movie. But, most important of all' are the believable characters--from Cinderella, right down to Lucifer, the stepmother's deliciously evil cat. They bring both life and vibrancy to the often told story, something very difficult to create in an animated film.

In conjunction with the film's 55-year anniversary, (and, not so coincidentally, the coming holiday season) ""Cinderella"" has just been released on a special edition DVD. It simply has never looked better. The fully restored film must be seen to be appreciated--suffice it to say, it looks wonderful. An enhanced stereo soundtrack has been added, and serves the music well. The DVD extras, now a standard part of Disney Platinum Editions, are too numerous to list here, but as usual, some are directed towards children, some are slanted to adults, and the rest fall somewhere in between. But real fans will want to get the Deluxe Gift Set, because, along with an actual cell from the film and eight character sketches, it includes a 160-page hardback book, which not only incorporates most of the material found in the book with the 1995 special edition home video release, but much more as well. As usual for Disney, ""Cinderella"" will only be available for a limited time. So, if like me, you are a ""Cinderella"" lover, get it NOW! This edition is truly a ""Dream Come True.""",Positive "Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,""Murder My Sweet"",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films.",Positive "I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the ""horror for infants"" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.",Negative "ALIEN LOVE ( As this movie is known in Britain ) is a very strange movie . I don`t mean that it`s an esoteric art house movie in the style of Peter Greenaway or Derek Jarman , I mean it`s a TVM with swearing , sex , some really good T&A , a bad script and a very retro feel . You can just imagine someone like John Hughes directing this ten years earlier , though of course he would have cut out the T&A

Going back to the bad script , one of the problems is that few of the characters have any type of motivation especially Amanda . Why does she pick up Connie at the bar ? Just so she could meet an alien ? Do you see what I mean about retro ? ET , SHORT CIRCUIT and a whole lot of other movies from the mid 1980s had this type of plot with most of them being more defined and convincing than the one seen here . The storyline continues to follow an ill defined , unconvincing and illogical path

That said I did find ALIEN LOVE watchable and not only down to the T&A on display . As a a sci-fi sex comedy it`s much better than FLESH GORDON and EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY",Negative "This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the ""no selling out"" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a ""Keep Britain White"" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as ""campy"" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-",Negative "Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a ""Master positive"" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come.",Positive "with all the European studios involved in this one, you would think you'd at least get some pretty photography; but the local color is kept to a minimum.

Irritation #1 is Mira Sorvino using a Russian accent in order to play a Spanish cop - WTF? The story is hopelessly confused. There's a supposed romantic back story that is intentionally confused - is she or isn't she a lesbian? - serving no purpose whatsoever. The cops in the movie are the most stupid to have graced a serial killer film in a long time. There seems to be some message about the mid-'30s Spanish Civil War But since pretty much everybody involved in that is dead, one doesn't see the point in it.

Despite the bull-fighting backdrop of part of the narrative (which part? who can tell), you never even get a good look at a bull fight. Earnest Hemingway would have punched the director in the nose - with my blessings.",Negative "The extraordinary Rosemary Forsyth is the main reason to see this flick. Why she never became a bigger store may never be known. But she is exceptional and steals every scene she's in. Garson Kanin directed this piece of fluff and the cast is first rate, with Robert Drivas and Brenda Vaccaro especially memorable. A ""9"" out of ""10.""",Positive "So Angela has grown up and gotten therapy and an operation to turn her into a real life daughter, rather than the son that she was born, and now holds a job as - wait for it - a camp counselor! How appropriate, right? I know, I love it. Anyway, the first sequel to the Sleepaway Camp franchise obeys all the rules of horror sequels - more blood, more imaginative killings (which aren't imaginative, but still more so than the original), more nudity, a more elaborate plot, and generally worse than the original.

It is entertaining in the same way as the original was, in that the characters and wardrobes are so goofy and so authentically 80's that you can't help getting a good laugh. At one point, a guy asks Angela out, and she says ""I'll call you,"" and then quickly walks away. The guy says to himself, ""How is she gonna call me? I don't have a phone!"" and then he sniffs his armpits, wondering what turned her off (it's the hair, dude!!).

It is a well-known fact that in 80s slasher movies, the murdered teenagers were more often than not being punished by their killer for some kind of bad behavior, usually for being too promiscuous. When I first started getting into horror movies and saw the Friday the 13th movies for the first time in the mid 90s, I didn't realize this. I learned it in a film class a year or two later and was amazed that their was some method to the madness. I was pretty impressed, not only that the movies were passing on some kind of message, albeit a morbid one, but that there was actually some thought put into it.

But not in this movie! At one point just before Angela kills one of her victims, she says ""Let this be a lesson to you. Say no to drugs!"" Real subtle screen writing there, guys. Then again, the dialogue is the most entertaining thing in the movie. Angela (who, by the way, went through all that therapy and those operations and all that trouble to clean up her past and reinvent herself as a normal and well-developed person and then changed her name from Angela to, umm, Angela), says at one point, ""I don't like being the wicked witch of the west, but I know what happens when things get out of control."" (People start getting killed...by me! HA!)

Then later, she demands that one of the counselors, Mare, make an apology, to which the girl replies, ""I'd rather die!"" Sorry, Mare, but you really walked into that one...

Two years ago I was a camp counselor at a sleepaway camp similar to the one portrayed in this movie (except the camp that I taught at had more than three kids to the 15 or 20 counselors and it also had rules, which the one in the movie doesn't). This made me notice the myriad of discrepancies in the movie from what camp life is really like.

That's okay though, you can hardly make a movie like this with a lot of 9 year olds running around, although there were some 10 or 11 year old kids killed in this movie. I hadn't seen that kind of thing much before.

Definitely bad taste, even for a cheesy 80s slasher movie....",Negative "The second official episode of the ""Columbo"" series (""Murder by the Book,"" filmed later, hit the airwaves first). Robert Culp, who would match wits with Peter Falk's detective in several future installments, is terrific as the short-tempered head of a sophisticated private detective agency who murders a client's wife when she refuses to cave-in to his blackmail schemes. The two stars are well-matched in this clever cat and mouse exercise that is one of the best in the series.",Positive "This movie, to me, is about family. Jimmy Morris lived his dream not just for himself, but for his family. I can't begin to tell you how I would be able to tell my little girl that daddy was going to Kansas City to cover Priest Holmes and the Kansas City Chiefs. She'd think it was the coolest thing, like Morris' son did. Living dreams with the family is what this one is about. I think only a father who has a close relationship with his family can truly appreciate what Jimmy Morris did.",Positive "I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, ""Burning Moon"". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, ""Premutos"" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially ""Braindead"". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in ""Bad Taste"", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)",Negative "This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.

The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.

So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.",Negative "Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.

The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.

All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.

The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the ""rising from the grave sequence"" is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some.",Negative "Distortion is a disturbing, haunting film, about life imitating art and art reflecting life. Haim Bouzaglo, the director of the film, plays the role of Haim Bouzaglo, artistically blocked and sexually impotent playwright, who finds inspiration in his suspicions about the subject of his girl friend's documentary. As an Arab suicide bomber, disguised in skullcap and American t-shirt, wanders through the landscape in search of his target and his nerves, Haim transcribes his girl friend's life as she films her documentary and incorporates himself and his actors' lives during rehearsals. But the bomber has already struck and Haim has left the restaurant just minutes earlier. Despite the manipulation of time and space, the story is crystal clear, comprehensive and absorbing, a brilliant commentary on the ""distortion"" of everyday Israeli life, where the political is intertwined with the personal, where everyone lives ""on the edge,"" and people never know whether they are playing leading roles in their own lives or are merely dispensable bit players in someone else's dramatic narrative.

Bouzaglo plays with this notion of everyone being an actor in someone else's production brilliantly. We are always voyeurs, seeing what the fictional director sees illicitly but also what the ""real"" director chooses to reveal. To remind us that these glimpses are violations of privacy, Bouzaglo takes us into the bathroom and the bedroom (sometimes the bedroom is the street and rooftop), and repeatedly frames his views within TV, video, or security screens. Actors play the role of actors who represent the ""real"" characters played by actors. Of course, each of the actors is the star of his or her own production, only dimly aware of their diminished roles in their fellow actor's personal films. The detective hired by the playwright becomes a character in the play. The actor hired to play the role of the detective seeks out the detective for ""tips"" on how to play the role, is caught by the detective on surveillance tapes, and they attend a cast party as their real selves.

Despite this multiplicity of views, there is no mistaking the clear lines of this narrative: the playwright searches for subject matter, the bomber seeks a target, and the detective stalks the filmmaker. Nor is there any difficulty locating Bouzaglo's ultimate target—enervated and impotent Israel, fully conscious of the threatening peril but incapable of meaningful action. Israel is Bouzaglo, the impotent fictional playwright cannibalizing his own life for his play. Israel is also the bankrupt soldier-entrepreneur who is the subject of the filmmaker's documentary, the cheating actors and actresses, and the cuckolded husband. They are all Israel because they are all helpless, caught in inaction or aimless action, as the bomber scans the landscape for his best target. All the characters can do as another bombing is reported is have sex and keep ""score"" of victims.

There is personal triumph, vindication, perhaps revenge at the end of this play within a story within a film, but viewers will be left aching for the state of Israel even as they are filled with admiration for Bouzaglo's memorable rendition of a nation's plight within the telling of an individual's story.",Positive "Special effects? Good.

Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.

Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.

This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.

Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.

And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack ""savior"" figure.

Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.",Negative "I was curious to know how critics responded to this rousing, inspiring film, so I went to Rotten Tomatoes and was dismayed to discover that the pompous peanut gallery that is our nation's film critics had given the film an average 43% (or ""Rotten"") rating.

All I can say is, if this movie doesn't move you, you have no heart. (It's interesting to note that the same film on the same website got a 74% rating from viewers).

Not that the opinion of critics is all THAT important to me. After all, I can't think of a more useless, overpaid profession. Some schmo gets paid to go to the movies (what a tough life) and does the same thing everyone else on the planet does: forms an opinion. But these chumps have a way of coming across like their opinion somehow matters more than yours, and even worse, they love to hate.

I'll grant you that this movie is old fashioned (well, except for the f-bombs), syrupy, and a little predictable... after all, you know right from the beginning that Cuba Gooding Jr., portraying real-life Navy hero Carl Brashear, is going to triumph (eventually) at every turn simply by the way he comes across: determined and plucky; strong-willed and optimistic.

But his performance and that of De Niro (as Billy Sunday, a composite character of several real-life people) are so strong, so inspiring, that you'll be on your feet cheering many of the film's scenes, especially the courtroom climax. You'd have to be a real stick in the mud not to be moved by these scenes. Like our nation's film critics. Michael Rappaport is excellent as well as a sweet-natured, stuttering diving student that befriends Gooding's Brashear. If anyone has seen ""Higher Learning"", this character totally redeems that character.

Anyway, this confirms what I've always felt: don't listen to critics. See this movie and get inspired.",Positive "Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.

Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?

Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)

Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.

4 out of 10",Negative "You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie – ""Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap"" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.

This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it?

What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.

Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.

Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F)",Negative ". . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of ""10."" After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today.",Positive "This was a big disappointment for me. I think this is the worst Mastroianni-movie ever made. Cosmatos tries too hard to make this movie a masterpiece and that makes this movie a typical ""art""-movie. I give 4/10 for this movie.",Negative "POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The Spy Who Shagged Me is a muchly overrated and over-hyped sequel. International Man of Mystery came straight out of the blue. It was a lone star that few people had heard of. But it was stunningly original, had sophisticated humour and ample humour, always kept in good taste, and had a brilliant cast. The Spy Who Shagged Me was a lot more commercially advertised and hyped about.

OK I'll admit, the first time I saw this film I thought it was very funny, but it's only after watching it two or three times that you see all the flaws. The acting was OK, but Heather Graham cannot act. Her performance didn't seem very convincing and she wasn't near as good as Liz Hurley was in the first one. Those characters who bloomed in the first one, (Scott Evil, Number 2 etc.) are thrown into the background hear and don't get many stand-alone scenes. The film is simply overrun with cameos.

In particular, I hated the way they totally disregarded some of the scenes in IMOM. When they killed off Vanessa at the start and had Basil sat that he knew she was a fembot all along. What was the point of that? They killed off Number 2 in the first one, and now they bring him back with no explanation whatsoever. This is supposed to be a spy-spoof, I don't think any of the characters even hold a gun in the film. It just goes on a trail, further and further away from the point.

The new characters are very unwelcome. The whole Mini-Me `make fun of my size' joke gets old very quickly. Fat Bastard is just a lame excuse for gross-out humour. In total there's about two or three good jokes. The rest are either tasteless or rehashed from IMOM.

If this were the first movie of the series then I'd probably be easier on it. But the series started on a note of dry wit and then plummeted down to a level of gross out humour. So I say, only watch this film if you haven't seen its predecessor, because The Spy Who Shagged Me is one ultimate disappointment.",Negative "I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.

There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.

There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.

That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.

The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.",Positive "On the face of it, Ruiz has set out to make a psychological thriller. Although it's not as satisfying as a classic piece in that genre, there are compensations. The tensions generated between Huppert and Balibar as women calmly but calculatingly at war over a boy they both claim are compelling; however, in a true European art-house style, Ruiz doesn't give us release of this tension as the women alternately also try to behave compassionately towards each other. The only raised voice is that of Huppert's waking from a nightmare (an uncontested irrational event in the film).

In fact, if we follow the title, the film is as little about its thriller skeleton as Jane Campion's In The Cut. Instead it is an intergender psychological study focusing on men. The boy, Camille (Nils Hugon), decides on a practical joke, playing his mother off against an emotionally vulnerable other woman. Both women seem to pander to him rather than scold and this compounds the problem. In the background is an intemperate psychologist (Charles Berling), swift to confront the women in his life - his sister Huppert, the nanny or his pa - and so acting as a symbolic adult counterbalance to the, calm and (we learn) manipulative Camille. It is particularly interesting that, like the father in Henry James' The Turn of The Screw, Denis Podalydes' law-enforcer Father is absent for the duration of the film. Ruiz fashions an Oedipal moment out of Huppert's reaction to his return at the film's close.

Read either as a thriller or as a psychiatric essay, this film is ultimately rather disappointing. I'm officially rather fed up with Mme Huppert's screen method, which is too buried and so I'll be looking to see her on stage before I come back to her (European - enjoyed Heaven's Gate) films again. The support is good. Ruiz does the cast no favours though. Quite apart from some poor lighting and some wilfully odd shots, its as if his direction has left characterisation quite out of reach - I'm thinking particularly of Edith Scob's Shamanic neighbour to Isabelle, who acts knowing but communicates bafflement. The set pieces do not link up to a forward driving plot - the tension I have already referred to is not only weakly dissipated but wasted in its directional potential.

Want to see a good contemporary French thriller? Go and see L'Appartement instead. 4/10",Negative "This picks up about a year after the events in ""Basic Instinct"". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.

This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.

This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.

So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to ""Basic..."" 14 years after it was made.",Positive "Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.

I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.

Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.

I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.",Positive "Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says ""lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away"". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.",Negative "First and foremost, speaking as no fan of the genre, ""The Bourne Ultimatum"" is a breathtaking, virtuoso, superb action movie.

Secondly, it is a silly malarky of cartoonish super-hero stuff.

Thirdly, the film carries a complex, important point, about crime-fighters turning into criminals themselves. No reference is made to Abu Ghraib or the Executive Branch's outrageous domestic assaults on constitutional rights, none is necessary.

So, the latest in the ""Bourne"" series, in the hands of Paul Greengrass (of the 2004 ""Bourne Supremacy"" and last year's ""United 93""), is a significant achievement, perhaps held back but not actually diminished by the unavoidable excesses of the genre.

""Breathtaking"" above is meant both as a complimentary adjective and a description of the physical sensation: for more than an hour from the first frame, the viewer seemingly holds his breath, pushed back against the chair by the force of relentless, globe-trotting, utterly suspenseful action. There is no letup, no variation in the rhythm and pull of the film, and yet it never becomes monotonous and tiresome the way some kindred music videos do after just a couple of minutes.

Oliver Wood's in-your-face cinematography is making the best of Tony Gilroy's screenplay from Robert Ludlum's 1990 novel (which doesn't stack up well against the ""Bourne Identity,"" written a decade earlier).

Matt Damon is once again the inevitable, irreplaceable Bourne, the deadliest of fantasy CIA agents, this time taking on the entire agency in search of his identity, his past, and the mysterious agency program that has turned him into a killing machine. Nothing like his quietly heroic Edward R. Murrow, the always-marvelous David Strathairn is the nasty top agency official, pitched against Bourne in trying to hide some illegal ""take-no-prisoners"" policies and brutal procedures.

Joan Allen plays what appears to be the Good Cop against Strathairn's Bad One. And, there is Julia Stiles as the agent once again coming to Bourne's aid; a combination of Greengrass' direction and Stiles acting results in a surprising impact by a mostly silent character, her lack of communication and blank expression more intriguing than miles of dialogue.

So good is ""The Bourne Ultimatum"" that it gets away with the old one-man-against-the-world bit, this time stretched to ridiculous excesses, as Bourne defies constraints of geography, time, gravity... and physics in general. (Can you fly backwards with a car from the top of a building? Why not - it looks great.)

All this ""real-world"" magic - leaping from country to country in seconds, to arrive at some unknown location exactly as, when, and how needed - outdoes special-effect and superhero cartoon improbabilities. And yet, only a clueless pedant would allow ""facts"" interfere with the entertainment-based ecstasy of the Bourne fantasy.",Positive "The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in ""Airplane!"" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.

Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.

She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.

Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.

Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.

Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.

The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.

Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.

The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.

I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final ""explanation,"" that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!

As I kept thinking of Nelson in ""Airplane!,"" I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.

In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.

This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.",Negative "Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.

Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their ""immortal soul"" can be resolved later.

Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.",Negative "I was deeply moved by this movie in many respects. First of all, I just want to say that Clara Lago was the most precious little thing! Such a pretty little girl. Her acting was superb as well. True to life and very human. Though I don't like the part where she had to smoke; I hope it was only a fake prop. Either way, she was absolutely wonderful and the story was so moving. I found myself immersed in the story and her character.

It's quite interesting how I came to discover this movie actually. I was walking in blockbuster and I just happened to notice her pretty smile on the cover as I was walking by. Luckily I glanced in the downward direction that this movie was in! I thought to myself, 'Awe, look at her!' So I picked it up and saw that this movie was described as such wonderful things as ""A Little Gem."" I read the plot on the back and then thought that, well, maybe I'd look it up on IMDb first and then come back and rent it at a later time. I'm glad I didn't, because I certainly would have been missing out. After searching for a movie with my friend, I knew that I would end up regretting not renting this film, so I went back to the spot in which I originally found it and snapped it up.

It had been on my dresser for a week, since school started for me this week and I really hadn't any time to watch it, but tonight was the perfect opportunity. I popped it in and was glued to the beautiful cinematography, delightful score and moving plot from beginning to end. I was so captivated and must say, some parts nearly moved me to tears.

I would also like to make a special mention for the young boy in this film, Juan Jose Ballesta. He was remarkable. Also the actor who played Carol's father, who's name is unfortunately not listed on the site. His voice was just so loving and gentle that I could really sense his love for Carol. Even though his appearance is not prominent, I really felt his character's presence.

This is truly a wonderful movie. If you are a person who is moved by light, but emotional films, then this is definitely one for you.",Positive "There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says ""Good night."" ""Goodbye,"" he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together — aha, he's going to off himself — we watch him struggle to open the window — oh no, he's going to jump — The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger — his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy — it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes — no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags — just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married — to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys.",Positive "This oddity from Roman Polanski clearly shows where his preoccupations lay at the time he made it. Polanski himself plays a timid man who rents a Parisian apartment where the previous tenant committed suicide. He becomes obsessed with discovering what led her to it, to the point that he's dressing in drag and reenacting events the way they might have unfolded. The movie's unsettling to a point, and it has that atmosphere of creepy dread that Polanski excels at, but it comes off too much as a rehash of ""Rosemary's Baby"" and ""Repulsion,"" two other better Polanski films that deal with the eerie goings on in moody apartments.

But as for the preoccupation....unless I'm reading too much into the film, I have to believe that this was Polanksi's reaction to the feelings of persecution he felt at being labeled a sexual pervert and exiled from America. Not making a judgement about him one way or the other myself, but it's hard to deny the evidence of that in the movie itself.

Grade: B+",Positive "I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started ""taking over"" the plane.

At first I thought maybe it should get a ""one"" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more!

Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.

This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only ""victim"" is your dumb ass.

If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.",Negative "This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.",Negative "The acting may be okay, the more u watch this movie, the more u wish you weren't, this movie is so horrible, that if I could get a hold of every copy, I would burn them all and not look back, this movie is terrible!!",Negative "Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the ""two"" of a ""one-two punch"" he had hoped would define his career after ""Ordinary People"") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: ""if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911."" If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs.

",Negative "Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.

The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.

It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used ""five months later"" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your ""Notes"" and watch the Patriot instead.",Negative "We all create our own reality, or do we? That is the core question behind this highly original and masterfully crafted examination of the illusionary nature of reality. Blending Eastern and Buddhist philosophies with the visual chicanery of M.C. Escher, this fascinating treatise manages to take on the rather cerebral question of `Who are we and what is our place in the universe?', and turn it into a captivating and fun-filled 100 minutes. The film centers on Bart, a writer struggling with his screenplay, `The Sea That Thinks.' As he sits at his computer, the work begins to unfold as nothing more than a description of his sitting at the computer, writing the screenplay. Before long he is stuck in a whirling conundrum in which everything he writes becomes reality. Director Gert de Graaff approaches his subject with an impish sense of humor and dazzles the viewer with a series of astounding visual tricks that confront the nature and validity of our perception. Ultimately, de Graaff's film challenges the audience at several levels to question whether anything we see or touch or taste is really what it appears to be, or whether our entire understanding of the universe and our place in it is merely a trick played on us by our senses. Note: AFTER you've seen the movie, check out the film's entertaining web site. (Dutch with English subtitles) --Eric Moore",Positive wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.

i've seen it 3 times so far.

the american audiences are going to love it.,Positive "Yes, Keaton looks like he really did enjoy making this film. With a skip in his step in his tailored pin-striped suits, he'll remind you of Jimmy Cagney! Johnny (Keaton) is the young hood who only does it to pay for his mother's high-priced medical bills & to send his younger brother (Griffin Dunne) to law school. No one even knows Johnny Kelly IS Johnny Dangerously until later on in the film. Joe Piscopo is Vermin & doesn't like Johnny one bit (& I don't like Vermin). Marilu Henner has a nice singing/dancing routine while Johnny revels in it. I love the part when they're in the ever-changing getaway car! The cop who's ""calling all cars"" is the Skipper from Gilligan's Island! See this one for 1930's gangster laughs! The gags in this film are hilarious but you have to catch them or you'll miss them! Look in the background of every scene.",Positive "I cant understand at all why so many Godzilla fans think this is excellent, one of the best Godzilla films ever in fact. This film is horrible and one of the very few Gojira films I cant stand to watch again (the other being G. vs Megalon).

The plot is too campy to be in the Heisei series, a series that attempted to turn the aging Godzilla franchise into bonafide action films, revolving around ideas that seemed more in place in 1974 than 1991. It just sounded ridiculous, especially with some of the subject matter, take for example the WW2 scene, with the Japanese soldiers praising a dying Godzillasaurus, a mournful and serious tone, take the exuberant former commander turn capitalist and his death, serious seens in a film its fans somehow denote as played for laughs, as a goofy romp with guilty illogical fun, if so than this is easily one of the most tasteless films I've seen, however I think its more likely it was only talent the filmmakers lacked and this was a case of a straight faced action movie gone bad. It was made ever worse by the fact that the special effects are terrible beyond compare, from the jet packs to the android, to the hokey sound effects emitted from everything, its impossible to take anything seriously, and yet the film expects you to, there's no nudges to the camera.

Like nearly all Godzilla films there's a pointless romance, and this is no exception, though something can be said about the fact that this one is especially pointless since and inexplicable. There is literally no reason at all presented for the romance, it just happens and there lives make 360 degree commitments for it. Aside from this the other terrible aspect of this film is dialogue, both the Japanese and English is horrible, clunky and possibly the inspiration for Battlefield Earth.

The Tristar DVD compounds the problems, making everything look grainy, blurred, dim and just plain ugly, the same was for the sound. I first saw the Japanese Region 2 version and the differences are night and day, with the original vibrant colors and texture, the noteworthy score, the fight scenes especially, are actually watchable.

In my opinion, the Heisei series is a disappointment, with the exception of Godzilla 1984 (Japanese version) there is little to praise here, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is case in point of this failure. It doesn't even come close to deserving the reputation and fans it gets.

2 out of 10",Negative "An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing.",Positive "Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!!

I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set?

Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid!",Negative "That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...

None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!

Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense.

The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!

3/10",Negative "STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.

This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *",Negative "A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment ""A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's"".

This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.

No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.

""G.I. Jane"" is Hollywood fluff.",Negative "If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!",Positive "This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!",Positive "This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.

I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.",Negative "After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.

This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. ""10 Items"" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned ""Lost In..."" seems to stretch out over a few long days.

I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.",Negative "Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.

Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.",Negative "Shintarô Katsu, best known for the Zatôichi films, again stars in this third and final movie in the Kenji Misumi (mostly known for ""Lone Wolf and Cub), directed saga of Hanzo 'The Razor' Itami feature the big dicked one battling ninjas, rapeing 'ghosts', and uncovering shady goings on at the Shogunate treasury. The Hanzo 'plot' was kinda getting stale and repetitive. What was once novel in the first film, was not any longer. Fortunately, this one was better then the second thanks to having more humor. I'm just glad that they choose to stop at the one trilogy (I'm looking at YOU Lucas)

My Grade: B

DVD Extras: Merely Trailers for all 3 Hanzo the Razor films

Eye Candy: Aoi Nakajima unleashes both tits, Mako Midori just her left one",Positive "Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, ""The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father."" To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.",Negative "I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't",Negative "And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie.

All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.

While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer.

It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.",Positive I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review!,Positive "I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.",Negative "This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies.",Positive "Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.",Negative "This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.

I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.",Negative "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is a very lost player in the short cartoon market. This market is essentially dominated by the Looney Tunes and the Merry Melodies shorts, coming from Warner Bros. But MGM is also able of releasing hidden gems, like ""To Spring"", an astonishing story about the most beautiful season of the year.

In the environment depicted here, spring isn't caused by natural cycles, but is fabricated. And by who? By little male elves who live below ground. Each spring, when the snow begins to melt, they start working. They begin by felling rainbow rock columns, then reducing them to rubble and using this rubble to turn it into color fluids, which will be moved up to the ground and bearing grass, flowers... In other words, spring! The first half of the cartoon depicts spring's fabrication, but the second part is a little bit different. Old Man Winter comes back and he tries to extend winter by destroying the elves' work. So from this point, we assist to a battle between the elves and Old Man Winter.

The music heard here is deliciously wonderful. The melodic parts stick in the head like an ink spot on a paper sheet. The second part melodies are thrilling and they perfectly fit with the action. This is just fantastico, Giorgio! The animation sequences are also a delight. The colors are well mixed and every little detail is shown into a massive, epic environment. The concept itself is brilliant. The elves are attracting characters, so is Old Man Winter, who effectively portrays the cold and ruthless feelings of the white season.

There's also a strong message included here. The battle seems lost for the elves at the end, until a single late arriving elf jump into the action and it leads to the elves' victory over winter. So the point is: only one single person can make the difference.

In conclusion, ""To Spring"" is a remarkable lost classic from short cartoon era. What is even more remarkable is that this cartoon's director made his debut here. And who is ""To Spring""'s director? It's a certain William Hanna...",Positive "Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.

I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.

There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like ""stop action"" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.

There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.

In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.

A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.

Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.

I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.",Negative "Jeremy Brett is simply the best Holmes ever, narrowly edging out the great Basil Rathbone of course, and this is probably the best adaptation of a Conon-Doyle short story.

A length adaptation includes some new plot strands that fit in well to the surrounding drama and heightens the hatred one feels for Milverton.

Excellent performances all round, especially from Robert Hardy, and both Brett and Hardwick fully rounded and comfortable in their roles makes this a superb piece of drama.",Positive "The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it.",Positive "How many fricken' times do we have to see a spook walking by in the background & peaking through a mirror's reflection? It's been done in two dozen movies in recent memory & four dozen times in this choppy, poorly done film. There were only two freaky moments to appreciate....when the ghosts invaded the personal spaces of two characters. Speaking of characters, the acting was as flat as the Diet Coke in the 64 oz. cup I was drawing it from. The side characters could have been pulled from various Scooby Doo cartoons. There was the friendly, aged sheriff. There was the kooky weirdo living in the backwoods with the Alabama drawl. Lots'o'characters with no development. The most disturbing image was that of a murdered child in the beginning. But rather than explore the child's murder, which would have been interesting, they just let us know that she was dead & her parents had a hard time reconciling her death with the community & each other. When they reach the cabin, the scenes rarely flowed together....with flashing images of the dead daughter interjected here & there. Oh...and the eerie sounds were also overdone. You know what I mean....creaking doors that open by themselves, crickets in the forest, yada yada yada. Ooooohhhh. Haven't seen that before. Again, you'll see the amazing self-opening door in the movie over and over an over again. NOTE TO DIRECTOR: a scary scene is only scary if it's not repeated every 5 minutes in the same film. Think these things out before calling out ""it's a wrap!""",Negative "This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the ""special effects"", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!

This is a good example of what ""over-doing"" means and I'll try to explain:

I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like ""Unbreakable"" or ""The Job"" if you know what I mean.

But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga – The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from ""Levens Productions"" you can't go wrong :-)

Well this might come as a shocker but ""this time"" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???

If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...

Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case...",Negative "badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.",Negative "Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed

adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in

college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the

Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or

interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all

game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't

open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.",Negative "In what I can say was a theft of my time I was taken to see this movie and I must say what a horrible experience. Fay Ann Lee is a terrible actress and is unconvincing in this movie. Larryjoe76 is obviously a shill reviewer. The plot is thin to say the least, the Cantonese dialog is not funny. See this movie at your peril.

David Tang from Shanghai Tang should be after the movie for the little or no revenue this movie will generate. The banal plot attempts to compete with other rom-coms out there, and just blends into the scenery. It was like watching paint dry.

In short this movie was a total waste of time and space. I've seen better movies on youtube.",Negative "Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated ""Emmanuelle"" series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest.",Positive "I thought this movie did a down right good job. It wasn't as creative or original as the first, but who was expecting it to be. It was a whole lotta fun. the more i think about it the more i like it, and when it comes out on DVD I'm going to pay the money for it very proudly, every last cent. Sharon Stone is great, she always is, even if her movie is horrible(Catwoman), but this movie isn't, this is one of those movies that will be underrated for its lifetime, and it will probably become a classic in like 20 yrs. Don't wait for it to be a classic, watch it now and enjoy it. Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.

All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it. I tip my hat to this movie

8/10",Positive "This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.

And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to ""hacker"" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.

Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.

Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad ""hacking"" science there too.

RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a ""hack"" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't ""been stealing chemicals & Bio agents"" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.

I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.

The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.

The ""guy"" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.

Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the ""guy"" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.

We also get to see WOPR as ""what's going to help"" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.

The whole ""Decontamination"" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.

The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.

There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says ""Decontamination in 30 minutes"", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.

Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.

If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided.",Negative "There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)",Negative "An unusual film from Ringo Lam and one that's strangely under-appreciated. The mix of fantasy kung-fu with a more realistic depiction of swords and spears being driven thru bodies is startling especially during the first ten minutes. A horseback rider get chopped in two and his waist and legs keep riding the horse. Several horses get chopped up. It's very unexpected.

The story is very simple, Fong and his Shaolin brothers are captured by a crazed maniac general and imprisoned in the Red Lotus temple which seems to be more of a torture chamber then a temple. The General has a similarity to Kurtz in Apocalypse Now as he spouts warped philosophy and makes frightening paintings with human blood.

The production is very impressive and the setting is bleak. Blood is everywhere. The action is very well done and mostly coherent unlike many HK action scenes from the time. Sometimes the movie veers into absurdity or the effects are cheesy but it's never bad enough to ruin the film.

Find this one, it's one of the best HK kung fu films from the early nineties. Just remember it's not child friendly.",Positive "A romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class ""artist"" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.",Negative "What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.

An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.

Edward Norton – a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.

Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.",Negative "Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.

Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says ""PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE"" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.

You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line ""Duck"" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best ""Denzel from Training Day"" impression, which was pretty entertaining.

Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called ""F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!",Negative "Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised ""Psycho"" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His ""Blow Out"", made the next year, was an improvement.",Positive "This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.

The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: ""He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion.""

Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.

This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.

",Positive "This movie is brilliant in every way. It touches on the complexities of loving relationships in a meaningful way, but never lectures. The script never condescends toward any character, not even the hapless Johnny. It also and benefits from spot-on direction, production design, casting, and performances. The fact that Cher is so perfect in the film and is more unlike ""Cher"" than she has ever been is a wonder to me. I watch Moonstruck at least once a year and I just viewed it again this Christmas eve with my 16 year old twin daughters and they loved it as well. It has something for everyone with a heart and leaves you filled with joy in the end.",Positive "Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.

I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do.",Negative "Julie Waters is always marvelous but Adrian Pasdar is a positive revelation in this wry gender-bent comedy about a transvestite who cannot suppress his obsession, and the changes he goes through when he's discovered. Unerringly eschews the vulgar, raucous easy jokes for genuine wit and true insight, and has an absolute ball while doing it. A very nice, low-key, feel-good, comedy",Positive "Barbara Stanwyck as a real tough cookie, a waitress to the working classes (and prostitute at the hands of her father) who escapes to New York City and uses her feminine wiles to get a filing job, moving on to Mortgage and Escrow, and later as assistant secretary to the second in command at the bank. Dramatic study of a female character unafraid to be unseemly has lost none of its power over the years, with Barbara acting up a storm (portraying a woman who learns to be a first-rate actress herself). Parlaying a little Nietzschean philosophy into her messed up life, this lady crushes out sentiment all right, but she never loses our fascination, our awe. She's a plain-spoken, hard-boiled broad, but she's not a bitch, nor is she a man-eater or woman-hater. This gal is all out for herself, and as we wait for her to eventually learn about real values in life, her journey up and down the ladder of success provides heated, sexy entertainment. John Wayne (with thick black hair and too much eye make-up) does well in an early role as the assistant in the file office, though all the supporting players are quite good. *** from ****",Positive "my name is Heather and i am the girl whose story this movie was based on. I want to thank all of you who saw this movie and enjoyed it. as crude and harsh as some of the things that were depicted in this movie were, it didn't really even come close to describing how bad things actually were. not to mention the affect everything had on my mother and little sister. thanks once again for the great comments that everyone had,i truly appreciate them

Hi everyone!

This is Heather's mom. It's hard to believe that so many years have gone by since this movie was made. Harder even to believe that people were still watching it a year ago. For any of you out there who have gone thru the same or similar kind of situation, please know that there are people out here in cyberspace that do understand completely how you feel. Our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of you.",Positive "You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.

Disney continues to firmly hold the title of ""Greatest Animation in the World"", with ""A Bug?s Life"" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful ""out-takes"" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features ""Gerry?s Game"" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.

This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? ""Antz"", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, ""Antz"" is largely cast with big name ""movie"" stars with a few familiar ""TV"" star voices, where ""A Bug?s Life"" is just the opposite, loaded with ""TV"" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.

Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.",Positive "The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before.",Negative "Domino is a great movie. It's about a young woman names Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) who becomes a bounty-hunter because of her boredom with her lifestyle. She joins with two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke & Edgar Ramirez) and the adventures begin. The script is good. Very down-to-earth and realistic with the tone of the film. The only problem I had with this movie is that it concentrates on the different things that they do, instead of the character of Domino.

Even with that, Kiera Knightley gives a fierce performance. She shows the right amount of anger and dedication in this performance. Mickey Rourke follows up his Oscar-Worthy performance in 'Sin City' with another tough-guy performance. Edgar Ramirez really doesn't do anything except speak Spanish every once in a while and stare at Kiera. Delroy Lindoi gives a good supporting performance. Mo'Nique was herself, although she did surprise me on one particular scene. Lucy Liu has great chemistry with Kiera Knightley in her scenes with her.

The best thing about the movie though, is the direction. Tony Scott's fast-paced style really brings the movie to life. The cinematography is some of the best, I've ever seen. It takes a regular movie and puts on acid. All the blacks are blacker, the whites are brighter, and it has a sort of green glow to it. The action scenes are exhilarating.

OVERALL: If you liked Sin City & Man on Fire, you'll like Domino.",Positive "William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The ""women's director"" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.",Positive "Stylishly directed, picturesquely photographed and brilliantly acted — Crosby's interpretation seems exactly right, Hardwicke has his best role ever, while Bendix is a treat too — this Yankee's appeal is universal and irresistible.

One of the principal joys of the movie, of course, are the songs. As might be expected, Bing is in fine voice. And although Hardwicke's solo has been cut, we can still hear him sing heartily as he dances merrily with Crosby and Bendix in their famous novelty number, ""Busy Doing Nothing"". It's also a treat to hear Rhonda Fleming, who, although she enjoyed an extensive stage and concert career as a singer, was rarely given a chance to be heard in the cinema. She has a lovely voice that more than matches her ravishing looks—and she looks very fetching indeed in her Mary Kay Dodson costumes.

Director Tay Garnett gets the most out of his lavish budget, using all the resources at his command to present every fabulous scene as effectively as possible. (Perhaps the eclipse looks a trifle too contrived, but who's complaining?)

In short, as the trailer actually describes, an entertainment delight from start to finish.",Positive "i liked this movie a lot.I rented this expecting something not too bad to spend an evening.It turned out a particularly satisfying experience. Some scenes were hilarious and managed to be so in a movie not intended to be just a stupid slapstick comedy but with some meaning and moral values.It manages on both counts.The leads are all good but especially the guy who stars,also wrote and produced the movie.I've never seen any of these actors before, but they were likable and made me care about what happens to them in the end which is saying a lot.The script is clever and involving and has a refreshing feel to it. I think you wont be disappointed to watch this.",Positive "I think this movie got a low rating because it got judged by it's worst moments. There is a diarrhea joke and an embarrassing nut-scratching scene, but apart from that there are actually quite a few moments that made me laugh out loud. Jason Lee is performing some wonderfully subtle comedy in this movie and Julia Stiles manages to be pretty damn funny herself. Apart from that this movie behaves like most romantic comedies, after about 40 minutes into it you know how it is going to end. (Which is better than most of them, where you already know after +/- 5 minutes). Anyway, better movies to watch but definitely not the worst pick...Cheers",Positive "OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...",Negative "I read this Thornton Wilder play last year in eighth grade. I was also forced to sit through this weak translation of it on screen. Let me tell you, it's not a terrific play, it is easily surpassed, but man it deserves a much better shot. The acting was really lacking, the scenery-honest to God-looked like it was designed out of cardboard by a group of three-year-olds. As if it couldn't get worse, the sound quality is lousy...there is this mind-numbing 'buzz' whenever an actor speaks...and I also couldn't help but notice that the chemistry between George and Emily, well, is non-existant. The actors all seem very uncomfortable to be there. There is no music. It is in black and white, which would be OK but it brings out the cheesiness of it all the more. In any case I think that if you're going to make a point of seeing this movie, which I don't really reccomend, then don't aim your hopes to high. The play, as stalwart as it is, is probably better.",Negative "This is really terrible.

The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.

I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.

There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.

I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.",Negative "I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.",Positive "I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.

What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.

I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.

The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).

To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.",Negative "A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie",Negative "One of the things that interested me most about this film is the way the characters and their associated histories are developed on the fly. I suppose the writers wanted us to gain interest in the characters by not force feeding their characters. The premise of using the art and craft of furniture design and construction was a unique theme and/or analogy for what families/siblings go through in life. The complexity of having a twin serve as a surrogate father and even husband added great tension towards making this film emotionally interesting. Also, although the story was not one that the masses might directly relate to (i.e. Jewish/twins/family business) the themes are fairly universal as every family has a black sheep in it. That made it very engaging.",Positive "This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.

There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be.",Positive "This is a cute and sad little story of cultural difference. Kyoko is a beautiful Japanese woman who has run to California to escape from a failed relationship in Japan. Ken is a Japanese American manual laborer with aspirations of rock and roll stardom but little concrete to offer a potential partner. Kyoko ""marries"" Ken in order to be able to stay permanently in the U.S., with the understanding that although they will live together until she gets a ""green card"" the marriage will be in name only. It soon develops that the parties are not on the same wavelength - or perhaps in the same ""time zone"", hence the title of the movie. As an immigration attorney I have seen such ""arrangements"" take on a life of their own, so I was pleased to see how well the filmmaker developed the dramatic possibilities of this situation.",Positive "This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10",Negative "William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.

We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.

Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though.

All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more.",Positive "This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.

It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in ""The Big Chill"", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help.",Negative "I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some ""inside"" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the ""festival"" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz.",Positive "I lived in Tokyo for 7 months. Knowing the reality of long train commutes, bike rides from the train station, soup stands, and other typical scenes depicted so well, certainly added to my own appreciation for this film which I really, really liked. There are aspects of Japanese life in this film painted with vivid colors but you don't have to speak Japanese to enjoy this movie. Director Suo's tricks were subtle for the most part; I found his highlighting the character called Tamako Tamura with a soft filter, making her sublime, a tiny bit contrived but most of the directors tricks were so gentle that I was fully pulled in and just danced with his characters. Or cried. Or laughed aloud. Wonderful. A+.",Positive "This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things.",Negative "I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven.",Positive "The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.",Negative "I found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow ""upbeat"" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its ""one note"" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their ""Year's 10 Best"" list. I'd strongly recommend watching ""The House of Sand"" instead--now there's a good, small film!",Negative "Do you like really inventive comedy or do you love ""the wedding crashers"", if the answer is the latter stop reading now. I can't believe this movie is not higher rated. Basically Meadows plays a character not unlike Austin Powers.There are so many inventive moments in this gagorama. From crudity - Leon playing with himself on the porch, the ex boyfriend tricked into eating . . Oh well. To inspired lunacy- clown sex , the Broadway routine, the voice over. Meadows is great as the childish, but very sweet natured Leon. Some great lines ""don't blame the wang"" ""freaky deaky sex world"" too many. . . Why this movie wasn't huge is a mystery. Great comedy.",Positive "We've been served - a terrible film.

Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the ""competitive world of step-dancing,"" I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.

And, boy, have I just seen it.

Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, (""A Touch of Pink""), ""How She Move"" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.

I'll try to give a small synopsis of the ""plot."" First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day.

There are a few other guys in this ""crew,"" including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in ""Malcolm X."" There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old ""Flip Wilson Show."" One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.

There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big ""Step Monster"" jam in Detroit.

Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.

It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like ""Rocky"" with a really bad soundtrack, ""Rudy"" with annoying rap music in the background, ""Cry Freedom"" without the laughs.

But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, ""How she moves""?

I was ""moved"" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.",Negative "Man oh man... I've been foolishly procrastinating (not the right term, there's a long list!) to watch this film and finally had the chance to do so. And ""news"" are: Marvellous labyrinthine spectacle!

For any Von Trier's ""follower"": both Rigets, Element of Crime, Dogville, Dancer in The Dark, The Five Obstructions, etc... Europa is probably the differential for its greatness in visual terms. Everything is beautifully somber and claustrophobic! You really get the feeling of being inside this ""imaginary"" nightmarish time warp. Taking from the masters of surreal cinema like Bunuel, Bergman, till noir films of the 40's with acidic drops of avant-guard Von Trier leads the art-film scene as the ""well intended totalitarian"" movie maker of nowadays. His authoritarian way of dealing with very intricate issues, without being irrational, hits the nerve of the viewer with the intent to cure some of the deepest wounds we feed in our hypocritical world.

As Utopian as it seems, I do believe people like Von Trier could help society in many ways in a broader aspect. The day films and filmmakers that carry this sort of power are no longer necessary, as a tool for reflection, perhaps it could be the start of a new era: ""The age of emotional control over our fears"". This is what he offers to us constantly through his work over and over.

Bravo!",Positive "Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if ""Rambo"" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.",Negative "Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...

But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...

I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.

Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...

""Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!""",Negative "The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit""man""? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",Negative "An imagination is a terrible thing to waste ... especially when you have talented actors. Writer/Director Jones wastes no time in siding the viewer with his protagonist.

Anyone who has shared an apartment with a slob will be crying with laughter. Anyone who has arrived while a meter maid places a ticket on your windshield will just plain cry. We've all wanted to rip a terrible toupee off a man's head. These are only snippets of what's in store when watching ""Cross Eyed"", a heartfelt film that should be a stepping stone for Jones and his wry sense of humor both in front and behind the camera.",Positive "I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that ""Stripes"" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and ""Stripes"" is a bad movie.

Now, ""Stripes"" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.

Why is it bad? Mostly because ""Stripes"" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as ""Anchorman"" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.

""Stripes"" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.

Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in ""Stripes"" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in ""Stripes"" funny either.

""Stripes"" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's ""buddy"" comedy I would recommend ""Stir Crazy."" Like ""Stripes"" the humor in ""Stir Crazy"" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike ""Stripes"" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.",Negative There was no characterization in this movie and really shows how much this talentless hack who directed this needs to learn his craft. All his characters in this movie were so unlikable and I could care less. The best point in this movie was the end credits and the hour long shower after this cause I felt so damn dirty that I wasted money on this stinking load. Hey genius....triads and yakuza are from two different places learn something about Asian culture. The dog scene in this felt so tacked on and useless. This DVD does prove useful I do love my new coaster.

So kids don't waste your cash on this crap buy Hostel instead.,Negative "I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.

All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas.",Positive "I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.",Negative "Writers Perry and Randy Howze crafted a very engaging little story in ""Chances Are.""

Using the idea of a reincarnated man who happens to return to his former wife's home many years later, the plot takes unexpected, delightful turns.

Twenty four year old Robert Downey, Jr. renders a delightful performance, ably assisted by Cybil Shepherd as the widow and Ryan O'Neal as a good friend.

This trio has just the right chemistry for this caper, playing off one another with a graceful style. I've watched this film a number of times on tv, and each time found it most enjoyable.",Positive "Mark Pirro's ""Deathrow Gameshow"" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.

In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called ""Live Or Die"", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...

""Deathrow Gameshow"" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10",Negative "Pendragon Pictures' new film ""H G Wells' War of the Worlds"", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.

I liked this film, with certain reservations.

How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.

Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for ""real"" seem to be those in open fields or forests.

But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.

The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.

I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.

A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.

Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.

BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka ""INVASION"") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.",Positive "Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money!",Positive "Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.",Negative "...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The ""movie"" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.",Negative "This film is not morbid, nor is it depressing. It -is- sad, because AIDS in the early '90s -was- sad. But its real message is one of love and perseverance.

Mark and Tom were in a long-term, loving relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident right away, and as the ravages of AIDS escalate and become the focal point of their lives, you see strength and commitment that are truly heartwarming.

When ""Silverlake Life"" was originally released, I was deeply involved in HIV/AIDS education and health care, volunteering as a counselor at an HIV/AIDS clinic. The film spoke to me like no other AIDS film of its day could, because Mark and Tom were real people, living the very experiences that I saw on a daily basis in real life. I knew from firsthand experience what it was like to watch AIDS eat away at formerly vibrant, young, healthy people; seeing it happen to Mark and Tom in the film was very much like watching my real-life friends deteriorate. It touched me in a way that, even all these years later, still affects me.",Positive "Just finished watching this movie for maybe the 7th or 8th time, picked it up one night previously viewed at Blockbuster and absolutely loved it, I've shown it to 4 people so far and they have enjoyed it as well. Avoid of all the Hollywood glamour, special effects and stress on the ""shock factor"", this independent film by Paul F. Ryan hits the nail on the head in dealing with the after affects of traumatic situations. Taking place after a high school shooting, two characters Alicia (Busy Philipps) and Deanna (Erika Christensen) form an unlikely bond. Alicia, the girl with the stone heart, the Goth who has a pessimistic attitude to life assists Deanna to overcome the issues of life and death and living in the aftermath. Meanwhile Deanna attempts to help Alicia to see some of the softness and light in the world again. Not stressing on the shocking event of the shooting, but on the interpersonal relationships amongst those who survived it sets this movie apart. Despite its low-budget and short filming time, this movie is far from cheesy. Ryan pays respect to a situation he has never endured and attempts to delve into the human psyche. With an amazing up and coming actress, Philipps, adds the necessary dramatics to the dialogue and overall feel for the film and Christensen helps to balance out the ""doom and gloom"" feeling this movie may have. Overall, I recommend this movie and if you enjoy the topic of school aggression and violence and learning more about it, I also suggest the documentary ""It's a Girls World"" put out by CBC in 2004, which deals with the topic of social bullying, comparing and contrasting two groups of girls one in Montreal, Quebec and the other in Victoria, British Columbia, the group of friends and acquaintances of Dawn Marie Wellesley a 14 year old girl who killed herself after being brutally bullied.",Positive "Updated from a previous comment. The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her comedic stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines, a bit player in crude comedies. They appear together in cheap comedies until Marion is ""discovered"" and becomes a big dramatic star.

A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretensions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team, and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glyn, Norma Talmadge, Mae Murray, Rod LaRocque, Leatrice Joy, Dorothy Sebastian, Estelle Taylor, Louella Parsons, Renee Adoree, Aileen Pringle, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Dell Henderson plays the father. Polly Moran is a maid. Paul Ralli is the slimy leading man.

SHOW PEOPLE was said to have used the career of Gloria Swanson as its model (I think Mae Murray is closer). Davies and Swanson were friends. But this film's story does parallel the rise of Swanson from one-reel Mack Sennett comedies with Charlie Chaplin to STAR in Cecil B. DeMille films of the late teens and early 20s.

Davies and Haines were huge MGM stars and friends. Odd that MGM never teamed them up in a talkie. They're great together! A sweet romance and delightful spoof of early Hollywood. Greta Garbo and Bebe Daniels are mentioned but do not appear.",Positive "Credited by Variety to be one of the greatest documentaries to ever come out of Canada. Al Pacino, Roger Ebert, Neil Simon, Matt Dillon as well as a constant slew of celebs make this film a Canadian classic. The film is really best described as ""Roger & Me"" meets ""The Player"". Watch as Kenny Hotz and Spenny PITCH their script to the big boys of Hollywood. Called the only American film to ever come out of Canada, This film opened the Toronto Film Festival in 1997, Winner of the 'Best Indie Film Award Toronto'. Europe premier was at the prestigious HOF film fest in Germany. U.S.A. premier U.S. Comedy Festival Aspen 1999. More information available at www.kennyhotz.com",Positive Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies.,Positive "I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon.",Positive "First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.

The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.

The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.

It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay – who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person – who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.

Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.

There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good – brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that – very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively.",Positive "Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.",Negative "This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.

Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.

And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action!

Brilliant movie!",Positive "Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say.

As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.

Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, ""Amic/Amat"", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!",Negative "In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael ""Death Wish"" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.

The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.

If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.

I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any ""8"" film that I've seen.",Positive "I have always been a huge fan of ""Homicide: Life On The Street"" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.",Positive "I just watched this film again and remain dismayed at the number of cynics who dismiss it as just New Age pap. A great film, one that takes its time to develop, it keeps coming close to going over the edge but never does and ultimately is meditative, affecting, and truer to life than most films people who dismiss its ""coincidences"" can see. I was angry at the time that movies like ""Prince of Tides"" and ""Bugsy"" (though I liked the latter) were nominated for best picture that year (let alone that ""Silence of the Lambs"" won!) and this was ignored completely except for one nomination for best screenplay. Upon revisiting it, I think history supports my initial reaction!",Positive "I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them ""was it any good?"", they say ""no we turned it off after 15 minutes!"" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.

This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.

Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.

But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.

And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.)",Negative "If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.

Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.

One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.",Positive "If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.

What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.

You are better off not seeing it.",Negative "Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.

Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.

By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old ""Boo"" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.

I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.",Negative "After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.",Negative "The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing ""Tower of Song"" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him.",Negative "I will admit that I have seen maybe five minutes of ""Jerry Springer"". I don't consider myself a snob, but I really think that I am above watching what's on his show. You should try to elevate yourself above that too.

I saw this movie as part of a social studies event I was conducting. I was told that this movie really had little to do with Springer himself, rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on ""Springer."" Handled better, this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people's lives actually are. I will admit, I felt a twinge of empathy for Connie (Molly Hagan). This is all she has in life. How sad that she feels she must go on Jerry's show in order to resolve this.

I really feel sorry for Molly Hagan appearing in this. Have you noticed that after this movie, she has mainly been relegated to ""B"" roles on TV? I will say this about Hagan. She is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. I have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. The problem is that Hagan can't carry a scene on her own. She just doesn't have what it takes to do a lead role. Her best work will always be Angel on ""Herman's Head"" (a show that was not great, but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on ""Seinfeld"" as Sister Roberta.",Negative "It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!!",Positive "When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or ""preachy"" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, ""matter-of-fact"" way. I hope to show it to my daughter.",Positive "With films like ""Wallace & Gromit"" and ""Chicken Run"" under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of ""Creature Comforts"".

Derived from a short done early in their careers, ""Creature Comforts"" is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.

Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, ""Are you a liar?"" and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.

The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.

How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, ""I like them kind of thin."" is an insect, the Walking Stick.

There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.

There are two birds in a cage. As the ""wife"" tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.

While it might take some time for ""Creature Comforts"" to find it's ""legs"", it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, ""Creature Comforts"" is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.

Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults.",Positive "This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please!

Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable ""Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"".

Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.",Negative "i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno.

The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.

I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.",Negative "Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.

But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.

Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.

Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la ""The Sting"". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.

The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the ""Kill Bill"" volumes.",Positive "Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.

Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame ""hunters"" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.

John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?

Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.

By comparison, JASON X: ""FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE"" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.",Negative "I saw this film at a time when I was timidly toying with the idea of moving into my own apartment and starting life on my own. Maybe that is the reason why I took it so seriously. I believed totally in the poor character's psychological degradation inside a Paris of perpetual construction sites, dust, squalor, selfishness, rudeness, malice and decay. I'm giving all the credit to Polanski's artistry in his direction, his playing and his inescapable script but I fainted during the horrible final scene and had to be revived by cognac in the office of the theatre's manager. Luckily for me, my life on my own didn't turn out as disastrous as this (so far) but I have always kept a great respect for an artist who can perform such illusions and so totally immerse himself in the (fake) reality he is trying to convey. Simply put, the man is a genius of the first order and a credit to the human race. This film is the sum of many, many instances of great acting and great casting. As some performances were done in English (the scenes with Shelley Winters and Melvyn Douglas among others) and others in French (with most other characters) and Polanski did his own dubbing in English and French, I heartily recommend, if you happen to be bilingual, to switch the audio from French to English and vice-versa, during the appropriate scenes while watching the magnificent transfer on Paramount DVD. This film is part of Polanski's so-called ""apartment building trilogy"" which also comprises ""Repulsion"" and ""Rosemary's Baby"". Unfortunately, ""Repulsion"" still hasn't made it to a decent DVD transfer in Region 1. Needless to say, the three films would make a magnificent boxset.",Positive "It kept my attention to the end, however, without spoiling the film for anyone....... when she fixed the fridge by getting a book from the library, you knew how the film would end when she went back to library for a book on self defence against and assassin. The film, for me, said nothing of worth.... is becoming an assassin really a remedy for mental illness or just another symptom.",Negative "Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.

He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.

The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.

This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.",Positive "This is the kind of movie that leaves you with one impression.. Story writing IS what movie making is about.

Incredible visual effects.. Very good acting, especially from Shue. Everything is perfect.. Except.. The story is just poor and so, everything fails.

Picture this, if you had the power to be invisible.. What would you do? Well, our mad scientist here (played by Kevin Bacon) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape women.. This is all his supposedly ""genius"" mind could think of. Does he try to gain extra power? No. He doesn't even bother research a way to get back to being visible. The guy is basically a sex crazed maniac.

Add to that, the lab atmosphere, you have all these young guys.. Throwing around jokes like they were in a bar.. If it wasn't for all the white coats and equipment, you would think this is a bad imitation of ""Cheers."" Very shallow and poor personalities and very little care is put into making you think these guys are anything but lambs for the Hollow Man's wolf.

Even as a thriller, the movie falls way short because most of the ""thrilling"" scenes are written out so poorly and are full of illogical behaviors by the actors that are just screaming ""this is just a stupid thing I have to do so that the Hollow man can find me alone and kill me.""

If you read the actual book, while the Scientist (Cane) goes after women, there is a lot of mental manipulation and disturbing thought that goes into his character. In the movie, Cane is just the sick guy who goes to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in women and get off on it. Just sad.",Negative "Not to mention easily Pierce Brosnon's best performance. Of course Greg Kinnear is always great. Really, when has he really been bad? I think this film is incredibly underrated! The use of colors in this movie is something very different in today's film world where every other movie has the Payback blue filter. I also love the way they used the song by Asia. Proving that even what was once thought of as kinda cheesy can be really cool placed correctly.

I was making my first feature when this came out. Being that my film was a hit-man movie, I had to check out anything in the genre that was released. After seeing it, I'm sure it had some effect on me through the process. It was pretty cool when my film got on the IMDb that it would recommend this film if you liked mine. How any of the others relate I have no idea, making an even more interesting coincidence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337580/",Positive "Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B",Positive "Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.

The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.

I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.

Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!",Negative "I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame."" But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!",Negative "Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation.

The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful ""victim,"" and the handsome, obviously extremely ""off-center,"" blue-collar protagonist (if just short of ""totally-deranged"") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.

This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a ""turning-the-tables"" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.

Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.

But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work.",Positive "Just the ultimate masterpiece in my opinion. Every line, every phrase, every picture is exactly in place and Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna are just THE cool shrink and the sleazy con-man, so well cast. 10 out of 10!",Positive "well ""Wayne's World"" is long gone and the years since then have been hard for snl off-shoot movies. from such cinematic offal as ""It's Pat"" to the recent 80 minute yawn, ""A Night at the Roxbury,"" many have, no doubt, lost faith that any other snl skit will ever make a successful transition to the silver screen. well fear not because Tim Meadows comes through in spades. the well-written plot maintains audience interest until the very end and while it remains true to the Leon Phelps character introduced in the five minute skit, the storyline allows the character to develop. the humor (consisting largely of sex jokes) is fresh and interesting and made me laugh harder than i have in any movie in recent memory. its a just great time if you don't feel like taking yourself too seriously. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of ""Saved by the Bell"" fame, makes an appearance in the film and looks incredible. finally Billy Dee Williams, reliving his Colt 45 days, gives the movie a touch of class. and for those out there who are mindless movie quoters like myself, you will find this movie to be eminently quotable, ""ooh, it's a lady!""",Positive "... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.

Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.

After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, ""We get it, we get it!!!!!"" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.

It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.",Negative "I'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.

After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.

Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.

Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...

Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.

What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though.",Positive "I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.

No thanks.

It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.

The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.

The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.

Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.",Negative "I've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.",Negative "It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.

At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:

1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.

2) The ""flies"" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?

3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.

4) Excessive patriotism. For example: ""They are American files after all!"" Oh, give me a break.",Negative "I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....

Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.

I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING!",Negative "Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.

There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so ""talky"", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).",Negative "As a true Elvis fan, this movie is a total embarrasment and the script is a disaster. The movie opens with the beautiful son ""Stay Away"" and the scenery of the Grand Canyon gives the viewer hope of something special. Elvis gets in the picture and his talent is wasted big time, especially on the rest of the featured songs. I sat through this movie twice, just to make sure it is a piece of junk!!! 1 out of 10!!!",Negative "Diane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),""The Family Stone"",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, ""Surrender Dorothy"", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors.",Positive "Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.",Negative "This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.",Positive "So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do?

I will tell you!

Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!

The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.

It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.

The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary!

(The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )

Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.

Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer!",Positive "After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate.",Positive "The film transported everyone back to October 20, 1944 where we seemed to be part of the great Philippine 'I Shall Return' landing scene… It was on that Leyte shore where General MacArthur reaped his fame…

Above all, Gregory Peck triumphed in his portrayal of the great general… It is the stride, the set of the shoulders, the intensity… It's what both men have had in common: intensity, total absorption, devotion… With MacArthur it was for the military… With Peck it was for the challenge of acting… An Academy Award winner for ""To Kill a Mockinbird"", an Oscar nominee for ""Keys to the Kingdom"", ""The Yearling"", ""Gentleman's Agreement"", and ""Twelve O'Clock High""—he has played everything from an apparently homicidal amnesiac to a crusading journalist; from a troubled gunfighter to an obsessed attorney; from biblical David to Captain Horatio Hornblower… He has brought to them all his own unique insight, his character, his sincerity, warmth and love, and especially, his humor…

There is a scene where 'MacArthur' stands on deck with the 'President of the Philippines.' We can hear the dialogue: ""General, I hope the water isn't too deep,"" says the 'President,' ""because my people will find out I can't swim."" Then come Peck's sonorous voice: ""And my people are going to find that I can't walk on water!""

As ""MacArthur,"" Peck once again justified his reputation as a giant in the film industry… Through him we felt MacArthur's emotions: we knew his anger, his happiness and we understood the relationship with his whole family…",Positive "Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.",Negative "Out of all the Princess stories Disney has put out there, Cinderella probably has the most enduring appeal. I can't really say why, but for some reason, generation after generation thrusts her to the top of their lists. As a little girl, I wanted nothing more than to be Cinderella with her glass slipper- it was my absolute favorite costume.

Honestly, I don't think there is any story that more realizes the longings of the human heart than Cinderella. Who has never wanted to run away from the drudgeries of daily life and find someone who sees you as no one else ever had? The story is older than the English language and somehow it still rings true.

As for the characters, if nothing else, Disney can make a wonderful villain. Lady Tremaine is evil to the T, in a wonderfully calculating, not overtly physical way. Her cutting tongue and eyes do the work for her- she doesn't need staffs of lightening to strike fear into your heart. The animal friends tend to grate, especially that idiotic Gus. I would have cheered had he met his fate in Lucifer's jaws. Cinderella herself was no pushover- making some justly catty remarks at times. However, she just lacked the drive to make her entirely sympathetic. Sure, she was nice and fed animals, but what was keeping her at that place? We never know. Even if she only became a maid in another house, at least she's be getting paid and have a shot at respect. It seems the only reason things work out in the end for Cindy is that everything sort of falls to place in her lap. She never works for her dreams that she sings so fondly of.

Which brings me to the music, which is lovely, as ever. Ilene woods has a lovely, rich voice, probably my favorite of any Disney heroine. Some big standards originated here- A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes, So This is Love, Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo...

Cinderella is a wonderful heartfelt story with a ton of musical highlights. While it is lacking in some character development, it does provide some classic villains and excellent voice work. If you are feeling sick at heart, pop it in- it'll warm you up and make you hum Mmm Mmm Good!

Quote of the film:

-Surprise! Surprise! -Duh duh duh- Happy Birthday!",Positive "This film was great.

The plot was preposterous.

The action sequences contrived.

But, provided you can lighten up enough to laugh, it was a throughly thrilling romp combining Keystone Cops and the Lone Ranger.

The baddies were more silly than bad. The good guys weren't too good. The black actors played normal characters rather than black stereotypes.

The inclusion of a baby added a good touch. Sympathy might have been a little difficult otherwise.

I have to disagree about the acting. It was, on the whole, very good. I really wanted to punch Judge Reinhold.

And, after all, isn't that the mark of a really good movie, wanting to punch Judge Reinhold?",Positive "Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.

It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.

I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again.",Positive "Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.",Positive "Have never understood why the MacDonald-Eddy swan song has always been panned so mercilessly--not just by their detractors but by virtually everyone. To me, ""I Married an Angel"" is more lively and imaginative than any of the duo's more celebrated outings. The sets and costumes are as lavish as any to be found in an MGM musical, the script is by the reliable Anita Loos (""San Francisco,"" ""The Women,"" ""Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,"" etc.), the Rodgers and Hart tunes (albeit altered a bit by MacDonald-Eddy regulars Bob Wright and Chet Forrest) are given celestial treatment by Herbert Stothart (Oscar-winner for scoring ""The Wizard of Oz""), and best of all, the ""singing sweethearts"" look great in their contemporary clothes and seem to be having fun with the bizarre proceedings. Try to show ""Rose Marie"" or ""Sweethearts"" to the uninitiated today and they may very well have a hard time sitting still, but this offbeat, fast-paced fantasy is bound to entertain.",Positive "First I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology.",Negative "It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom.",Positive "I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, ""Choy Huk"").

Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.

Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)

For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.

Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine.",Positive "I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox",Negative "When i first went to watch The Shining I was expecting a decent film from what I had heard about it and I liked a lot of Stanley Kubrick's other work but when I started to watch it it was so much better than I thought it would be.At times I seriously felt ridiculously uneasy and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen still there's something very disturbing about everything in the film. Now some people don't like Kubrick's version of The Shining since it doesn't entirely follow Stephen King's book but in my opinion both Kubrick's version,the mini-series and the book are all great.Jack Nicholson gives an awesome performance.If you are looking for a good original movie that will keep you thinking even after the movies over then watch The Shining.",Positive "I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.

This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.",Negative "Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father ""The Highwayman,"" who later commits suicide. ""20 years later"" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to ""master their own fears"" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.

The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!",Negative "Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.",Negative "It's remarkable that for 'Young Mr. Lincoln's' supporting players Ford cast lesser known, other-than-star actors. This not only heightens his film's focus on the central character of Lincoln, but it also affords the audience a refreshing insight into Lincoln as a man of his place and time, a man embroiled, as each one of us inexorably is, in the issues and sentiments of his time and seeking his way to resolving them. It's not so much through Fonda's Lincoln's words and actions but in the faces, the reactions of the supporting players that Ford tells the story of the formation of the young Lincoln's worldview, sense of place in society and polity, and of how the people responded to Mr. Lincoln's words and deeds and placed their trust in this man whom they deemed to have earned their respect and heeding.

Give this a try: instead of focusing on Henry Fonda, next time you view 'Young Mr. Lincoln' shift your focus to the supporting characters - you will, I expect, be handsomely rewarded with a more profound appreciation of both Lincoln and Ford. I like to suspect that Ford's storytelling through the supporting characters' reactions to Fonda's Lincoln may have appealed to David Lean when he directed Omar Sharif in 'Doctor Zhivago', in which it's the supporting characters' reactions to Zhivago that actually tell about Zhivago.",Positive "This film is a huge steaming pile.

I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.

For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc.

Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!",Negative "Oscar Wilde's comedy of manners, perhaps the wittiest play ever written, is all but wrecked at the hands of a second-rate cast. Sanders is, as one would expect, casually, indolently brilliant in the role of Lord Darlington, but the rest of the cast makes the entire procedure a waste of time. Jean Crain attempts a stage accent in alternate sentences and the other members of the cast seem to believe this is a melodrama and not a comedy; indeed, the entire production has bookends that reduce it to tragedy -- doubtless the Hays office insisted. Preminger's direction seems to lie mostly in making sure that there are plenty of servants about and even the music seems banal. Stick with the visually perfect silent farce as directed by Lubitsch or even the 2004 screen version with Helen Hunt as Mrs. Erlynne; or try reading the play for the pleasure of the words. But skip this version.",Negative "They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.",Negative "Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next....

I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.

Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!

Why this was renamed ""Legacy of Blood"" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!

Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.",Negative "SPOILERS: I'm always surprised at how many people gave this game good reviews. It was awful. The script and voice acting alone ruined it. Gabriel and Grace are the most unlikeable characters in the game. You almost pray for their deaths. And worst of all, there are less vampires in this game than there were werewolves in The Beast Within.

The lack of real vampires was incredibly disappointing. If you're expecting some kind of Anne Rice style vampire story, forget it. This game's story has very little to do with vampires. You won't even see any till about the very end and even then, you won't get to fight them.

The story has radical, and pretty much blasphemous, views of Christianity. I'm amazed it got off the drawing board. I'm not even Christian and I found it offensive. Mostly, the story centers around a search for The Holy Grail and buried treasure. The kidnapping of a royal baby, which should have been the focus, really gets pushed aside. There is no sense of urgency for Gabriel to find the baby. In fact, he almost never asks anyone about the baby after the first few time blocks.

The graphics are pretty bad. The characters move about at a snail's pace even on the best of systems. They are chunky and outdated. And it's hard to go from the FMV of The Beast Within to this horrible game engine for Blood of the Sacred.

The relationship between Gabriel and Grace takes an awful turn, too. I really don't know why it was so horribly rushed, but they do sleep together. And it's not fun. Gabriel spends most of the game telling his best friend Mosely how he thinks of Grace as more of a sister and he doesn't think she's the one for him. And he seems really grossed out that they slept together. But he's so unlikeable throughout the game, that you almost don't even care at that point. His dialogue was the worst in the game. And he was constantly making stupid sexual innuendos at anything female the entire game. By the end of the game, Grace leaves him with what appears to be a Dear John letter. I guess she was as fed up with him as most of the players were.

I found the story to be annoying and boring. I was expecting to play a story of a royal baby who was kidnapped by vampires. And I was expecting to get to see and fight vampires, maybe even have Gabriel or Grace turn into one. But no. Instead, the story focused on the author's warped vision of Christianity. What a shame. Here they had the elements for a great adventure, and instead we got this.

For me, the only interesting parts of the game were actually at the very end. We do get a few action style puzzles at the end. But it wasn't worth suffering through the entire game to get to them.

I can't really recommend this game. I had gotten it back when it came out, years ago, and I hated the game engine so much that I shelved it for years. I only recently dusted it off to see what I'd been missing. And now, I'm very sorry that I did. My favorite characters were ruined. I hope there will be a fourth game just to redeem the series. And I hope they get it right next time. It would be a terrible shame to end the series with this installment.",Negative "My commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills.",Negative "I thought this movie was very well done. Taking place in the mid 1950's, everything looked accurate to me. It was well cast and believable. I don't usually care much for this type of movie, because they just don't have any depth, but I felt this movie delved in to the characters and you could feel how they felt, you got to really know them and care about them. It did take me back to my youth and let me reminiscent about a more innocent time. This movie could be enjoyed by both male and female and by all age groups. After the movie was over I wished there was a part two. I wanted to know what happened to Dani and her family. This movie is bound to be a classic. If you haven't seen it you should try to catch it when it is on TV or rent it...",Positive "This was, so far, the worst movie I have seen in my entire life, and I have seen some REALLY bad movies. I saw this movie at my local video store, and the cover looked like it could be a decent horror movie. Little did I know that the cover would be the best part of the movie. Where to start? The filming of the movie was scattered and boring. At one point, there is a one-minute scene of no one talking, just a car driving to a ranch on a normal sunny day. Nothing happened, they just drove in silence. The whole movie is boring, with annoying, unbelievable dialogue and basically no plot to speak of. If you rent this movie, watch it with some friends and it might make a good comedy. Otherwise, when you see this movie, run.",Negative "One of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.",Negative "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.

Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.

2/10",Negative "I felt a great joy, after seeing this film, not because it is a master piece, but because it convinced me of, that the Portuguese cinema became really very good. We can see here the best Portuguese actores in this field.",Positive "Petter Mattei's ""Love in the Time of Money"" is a visually stunning film to watch. Mr. Mattei offers us a vivid portrait about human relations. This is a movie that seems to be telling us what money, power and success do to people in the different situations we encounter.

This being a variation on the Arthur Schnitzler's play about the same theme, the director transfers the action to the present time New York where all these different characters meet and connect. Each one is connected in one way, or another to the next person, but no one seems to know the previous point of contact. Stylishly, the film has a sophisticated luxurious look. We are taken to see how these people live and the world they live in their own habitat.

The only thing one gets out of all these souls in the picture is the different stages of loneliness each one inhabits. A big city is not exactly the best place in which human relations find sincere fulfillment, as one discerns is the case with most of the people we encounter.

The acting is good under Mr. Mattei's direction. Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, Carol Kane, Michael Imperioli, Adrian Grenier, and the rest of the talented cast, make these characters come alive.

We wish Mr. Mattei good luck and await anxiously for his next work.",Positive "If this movie proves only one thing, it's that Keaton is, was and always will be a comic at heart, even when dodging bullets, heading for the electric chair and getting at the wrong end of an information line in prison.

But ""Johnny Dangerously"" goes on to prove even more. In the '80s, the ZAZ boys (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker) were the pinnacle in the world of genre spoofs. But there were several pretenders to the throne. This time, Amy (""Fast Times at Ridgement High"") Heckerling tries her hand, with an amazing amount of television writers behind the script (go and check).

This slap-happy slapstick spoof of the 1930's cops-and-""gag""sters movies throws just about every cliche for a loop and even adds a few cliches that didn't exist way back when.

And not only is the ever-dependable Keaton on hand as the Johnny of the title, but so are such funny guys and dolls as Piscopo, Henner, Stapleton, Boyle, Dunne, DeVito, Walston and just about every other actor in Hollywood that happened to walk into the immediate vicinity. You'd be surprised by how many faces you'll recognize. I know I was.

And the jokes? Well, when they start out, they come at you fast and furious, like a machine gun. There are too many to count in the beginning, topped off with a crazy theme song by Weird Al Yankovic. But you have to watch for when they reload. And they have to reload a little too often.

Everyone tries, they seem to be having fun and I was laughing a good amount of the time. In the end, though, there was plenty of time to think about how certain scenes could have been funnier - not usually the best thing to think about after watching a comedy.

But for a slow night when there's nothing good on TV, pop in ""Johnny"" and be ready for some ""Dangerously"" serious laughter.

Eight stars. Check out ""Johnny Dangerously""... don't be a ""bastidge"".",Positive "This movie is about human relationships. Charming, funny, and well written, with meaningful text. It seems that Morgan Freeman surely have fun at the set. Also good music. Paz Vega is a beautiful and smart woman. I really enjoy her acting. Woman like her are a good motivation to learn Spanish language. From the moment Morgan Freeman meets the cute Paz Vega the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. 10 Items or Less is about zest of life. If you enjoy this film see also The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith and his son. Thats not a action film or a nude comedy. Its all about human relations.",Positive "I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, ""Revenge can be deadly""....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.",Negative """Midnight Cowboy"" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time ""Star Wars"" was released.

The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, ""Midnight Cowboy"" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. ""Midnight Cowboy"" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10)",Positive "Spoiler This is a great film about a conure. He goes through quite the ordeal trying to get back to his little girl owner. He learns a lot through his journey and meets up with a lot of other beautiful birds. If you love birds like my wife does, this film is for you. This film also has some sad parts that make the tears run. In the end it all works out for Paulie and his Russian friend. Rent this for the whole family, everyone will enjoy this.",Positive "Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.

If I may quote the blurb: ""In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan."" It then goes on to say ""A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents""

I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.

The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.

2/10 - So very very cheesy.",Negative "I admit, the first time I watched Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I didn't think it was very memorable in any regard. But now after viewing it the 7th time, I admit that it has very much grown on me. The characters of Sissy, Ms. Jellybean, and the Countess have become very endearing. And the romance between Sissy and Jellybean seems very sweet. Though the plot is very weak, I think the satirical humor more than makes up for it. Then there's the kick-ass soundtrack which features the tremendously talented K.D. Lang (who reminds me a little of Patsy Cline) at her best. I can't think of any movie that has ""grown on me"" after an inauspicious first impression, as much as Cowgirls has.",Positive "Ghost Story,(The New House) is a terrific horror story. This is from the Circle Of Fear and the Ghost Story series of the early seventies.The beginning and ending of each story is narrated by Sebastian Cabot. Remember him from the early family series, Family Affair in the 1960s? This particular story has Barbara Parkins and David Birney as the lead actors, and as the main characters in the story.I saw this recently,and I was so scared!If you are alone,I would not recommend that you watch this.This story is terrific,no gore or curse words, but very scary. Barbara Parkins played the young bride. David Birney played her husband.Both actors were very good in their parts.If you like scary, fun,terrifying ghost stories, then you will like this little gem. I gave this a high rating.I highly recommend this story.",Positive "Mesmerizing, breathtaking and horrifying, this hauntingly beautiful film is the ""Apocalypse Now"" without fiction. Slow in pace, quiet in mood, it gives good glimpses of the poisoned patches of Earth that may well be signs of an inevitable doom.

There is no doubt in my mind -- the nature is plagued and we are the disease. Greed, the very essence of humanity that drives evolution and progress, has turned us into something like cancer, on its way to consume the host and die with it...

Manufactured Landscapes is quite an unforgettable viewing experience - at least I'll never regard my toaster and iron the same way again.",Positive "This is one of those films that's more interesting to watch from an academic perspective than from an entertainment perspective. I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed or was entertained by the movie, so I'm giving it a 4. If I were to rate it as an academic film, though, it would get a 10.

It is shot in a very interesting manner, like a pseudo-silent film with elements of sound effect and reality. It's meant to convey disjointed memory and fragmentation of the mind, and it is interesting in these respects.

However, the film has a lot of disgusting elements to it that I didn't find all that entertaining. They're mainly just disturbing. It has some very interesting imagery too, and some interesting concepts, but some of the character relationships (especially between the mother and son) are pretty disturbing.

In all, this film will either appeal to you or it won't. For me, it was interesting from an academic perspective, but it wasn't a good watch, and I'll probably not go back to it a second time.

4/10 if you're looking for entertainment. 10/10 from an academic standpoint.",Negative "No rubbish - no where even near rubbish. Not an original? thats the last thing that could be said of ""2.4 children"".Predictable? certainly not! Although it was somewhat an unusual series for the BBC, it was hilarious, funny, and witty. I particularly liked Belinda Lang and John Pickard - who I believe preformed wonderfully.Gary olsen was also very good and so were all the other cast members..I never quite new why it was can-celled till reading here today about Gary Olsen's death at a relatively young age. I do wish that they would make more of comedy of this type, much more of them (and show them here in Israel).Thumbs way up!",Positive "This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is ""good"" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's ""Pulp Fiction""). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all.",Positive "This isn't among Jimmy Stewart's best films--I'm quick to admit that. However, while some view his film as pure propaganda, I'm wondering what's so wrong with that? Yes, sure, like the TV show THE FBI, this is an obvious case of the Bureau doing some PR work to try to drum up support. But, as entertainment goes, it does a good job. Plus, surprisingly enough for the time it was made, the film focuses more on crime than espionage and ""Commies"". Instead, it's a fictionalization of one of the earliest agents and the career he chose. Now considering the agent is played by Jimmy Stewart, then it's pretty certain the acting and writing were good--as this was a movie with a real budget and a studio who wasn't about to waste the star in a third-rate flick. So overall, it's worth seeing but not especially great.",Positive "I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.

With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here.

I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s)

This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.

Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.

This is the only ""10"" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...",Positive "A female country singer nicknamed ""Big T""--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead.",Negative "As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.

As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.

In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.

OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories!",Positive "This is a baffling film.

The beauty in sexual relations between men and women is shown degraded by a set of men and women who can only be described as a collection of oddballs and misfits.

Greenaway acknowledges his inspiration to Fellini's film ""8 1/2"" but whereas Fellini is a titan of world cinema, Greenaway is not.

He has none of the maestro's lightness of touch nor his ability to convey feelings and emotions with a deftness of clarity.

He is pretentious, the film being divided into chapters with a written introduction to each, as if the viewer has to be guided into the film except that the written notices only stay on screen for a few seconds, not long enough to be read by the audience with the result that they are mostly ignored.

As for the women, only two can be described as lookers, Palmira, played by Polly Walker and Giaconda played by Natacha Amal. The rest ooze with ordinariness. Both the women and the men retreat from the harsh light of reality into the dim shades of fantasy.

Greenaway obviously wants to make the point that sexual fantasy does not lead to happiness. The women themselves are depressing since they render their services in exchange for money. Relations between men and women are debased into a commercial transaction.

There is no sense of joy or happiness or love in the film, indeed there are several scenes that are deeply unpleasant :

The suggestion of an incestuous relationship between father and son, Philip and Storey Emmental played respectively by John Standing and Matthew Delamere. The callous disregard of both men that Giaconda is carrying their child, she in fact, gets pregnant twice, the first foetus being aborted and the second time, she is sent away to a destination chosen by the men from a flight book. Both men having sex with a woman who has no legs, (the half woman in the title). The beastiality that exists between Beryl, played by Amanda Plummer, with a pig named Hortense. Father and son sharing women between them. Women enjoying being beaten sexually. The father sleeping with the corpse of his dead wife.

Mercifully, none of these scenes are shown sexually, only hinted at.

The hinted degradation of women is such that there cannot be any wonder that the film was booed at when it was first premiered at Cannes. What is more extraordinary is that the actresses in the film lined up to defend it, showing yet again that there is no limit to the naivety of women and that women will fool themselves into being exploited by men.

Greenaway's directorial style is pretentious, it is a triumph of style over substance, a depiction of Film as Art accompanied by the abandonment of common sense.

Greenaway tries to attain the sublimity of surrealism but only succeeds in showing the banality of human relationships.",Negative "The House of the Spirits is a gripping tale of family intrigue, South American politics and super-natural powers. Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons bring Isabel Allende's novel to life with all its passion and suspense. This, in my view, is one of the best films of the 1990s. Jeremy Irons as Esteban Trueba ages and mellows very believably, while Meryl Streep in the role of Clara maintains her gentle, loving warmth throughout her relatively short life. Winona Ryder and Antonio Banderas make a handsome couple struggling for family acceptance in a racist culture. Glenn Close, as Esteban's sister, gives a very moving performance. The countryside of Portugal is a reasonable substitute for a non-tropical Latin American country. Settings of Clara's home and Esteban's ranch are effective and the period US cars add nicely to the post-war atmosphere.",Positive "It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?

I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.

I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a ""sit back with a few beers"" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of ""American Ninja"" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.

In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called ""White Phantom"" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers"" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.

So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours!",Positive "Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, ""The Angel of Death"". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars!",Positive "This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends ""Friends"" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends"" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of ""Seinfeld"" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of ""Frasier"". The characters in ""Friends"" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.

The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of ""Friends"".)",Negative "I think 'Blackadder the Third' is the best one of the series.

Actuelly all the episodes are funny, personally i really like the episode with the 'French invasion', but the one with the superstitious actors, in 'MACBETH' is also really funny, the way Rowan keeps playing on with them is really (English) Humor at the highest level.

Actors: 'Never say that again, always call it the Scottish Play; Blackadder: Oh, So you want me to say the Scottish Play? Actors: YES Blackadder: Rather than MACBETH...!

I am a big fan of Rowan and i have the majority of his work, but i think he did the series of Blackadder especially good.

I Hope Rowan is going to continue his great style, but i think we can count on him, because he is already working on a Bean 2 Movie, that will be out this year, i can't wait...

I Give this 3rd Blackadder a 9 out of 10 Rating.",Positive "This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player ""downtown"" to hit a home run, clearly ""downtown"" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.",Negative "While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from ""Kicking and Screaming"" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic ""The Indian in the Cupboard"" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: ""Take me outside, earth grasper."" From ""Grey Owl"": ""If you don't like it, you don't have to watch.""",Negative "This short film that inspired the soon-to-be full length feature - Spatula Madness - is a hilarious piece that contends against similar cartoons yielding multiple writers. The short film stars Edward the Spatula who after being fired from his job, joins in the fight against the evil spoons. This premise allows for some funny content near the beginning, but is barely present for the remainder of the feature. This film's 15-minute running time is absorbed by some odd-ball comedy and a small musical number. Unfortunately not much else lies below it. The plot that is set up doesn't really have time to show. But it's surely follows it plot better than many high-budget Hollywood films. This film is worth watching at least a few times. Take it for what it is, and don't expect a deep story.",Positive "With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.",Negative "There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in ""24"" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.

When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.

There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his ""24"" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.

Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics (""North by Northwest"" and ""The Fugitive"" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.",Positive "I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!",Negative "My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.",Negative "This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.

The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.

STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).

ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The ""teenagers"" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!)

NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).",Negative "this film was totally not what i expected.

if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two.

its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up.

carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail.

the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .

i really expected it to end like the other one started.

if some one has a opinion on this post it please.",Negative "I'm getting a little tired of people misusing God's name to perpetuate their own bigoted view on the world. Well I don't dismiss the idea of Armageddon, or the coming of the anti-Christ, I do dismiss the idea that only certain people who live truly good lives(They seem to be mostly white Christian children) will go to Heaven, while the rest of us must suffer through a millenia of Hell on Earth, just because we weren't good enough. God may be a judge, but I don't think He is going to measure every level of goodness. Give the Creator some credit.",Negative "I really enjoyed this movie. I am a single dad with a 17 year old daughter who is smart, athletic and talented. I WISH my girl applied herself so well to solving crimes and helping others! So for me, perhaps this is PG level Fantasyland. I read many Nancy Drew books in my teen years, long, long ago. Sure THIS character was ably played by Emma Roberts but did NOT resemble the Nancy Drew I recall from the books. That is due to script, not the acting.

Emma is an adorable teen, playing a self-confident, industrious and proud character with good manners and good taste. She is not caught up in the trendy competitiveness around her. There are some weaknesses in the Plot, aside from not resembling the Nancy Drew of the Books, and trying to figure out what decade we're in. (like, what is that CAR, Anyway?)

I read the IMDb overview before seeing the film, as I was researching Rachael Leigh Cook from other movies. This is not one of Her best roles, but I will continue looking for more of her films. Rachael was too old to play this lead, but does a fine job as the grown-up orphan central to the mystery.

I am very disappointed in other reviews written here. Some expect perfect connection with the books, some expect more credible situations or adult action film. I got what I expected! Good entertainment well targeted to young teen girls, And their Fathers who want good kids with high standards of conduct and achievement. This is a Teen PG Movie, not James Bond! Which would YOU Want for a Role Model for YOUR Teenaged Daughter?",Positive "Lock Up Your Daughters is one of the best high-spirited comedies I have ever seen.

It is misunderstood since it lacks the ""social commentary"" values that many films of the day (1969) required to be successful.

The characters are over-the-top satires of everyday people and played to that purpose by all of the actors.

Christopher Plummer shines especially bright as Lord Foppington, a noble with hair too big to fit in the door.

The plot involves the usual 18th century stuff; mistaken identities, thwarted romances, corrupt government officials, and jokes at every turn.

It answers the questions: What happens when 4 rambunctious, eager to party sailors are on leave in a small British coastal town? And, who do they get involved with and how does it all turn out?

Despite doing poorly at the box office, it has great costumes, excellent music(based on the Mermaid Theatre musical of the same name), great,lively acting and sets that are obviously authentic.

That it has never been released on either VHS or DVD is truly a shame, since so many bad movies are released every day.",Positive "Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, ""Melinda and Melinda"" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.

My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.",Negative "You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003.",Positive "This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.

7/10",Positive "A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.

The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.

In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.

The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.

The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in ""To Kill a Mockingbird"", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film.",Positive "Until I saw this special on HBO, I had never heard of Eddie Izzard. I sure am glad that I have now! He is one of the funniest comedians I have ever seen! Rarely has a comedian immersed himself so completely in his craft then Eddie. I could not stop laughing for the entire show. If you like to laugh you HAVE to see this special!",Positive "This movie rates as one of my all time favourite top 10 movies. Many people seeing it for the first time and knowing little about many of the themes in the movie probably won't understand why I find it so enthralling so I will try to explain...

The movie is very rich in historical detail and cultural insights, and while it has a few minor anachronisms, they are completely forgivable. The story is a retelling of the famous duel between the Monk Benkei and the young Prince Yoshitsune on Gojo bridge. During the fight according to legend Yoshitsune bests Benkei and the monk becomes the prince's loyal retainer. This movie is a revision of that story however and involves war, dark prophecy, and political maneuvering.

One of the main themes in the movie is ""Mappo"", which is the prophecy by the Buddha that after 1000 years his teachings would fail and the world would fall into chaos. It was believed in Heian Japan, after the eruption of Mt Fuji and the civil war between the Taira (Heike) and the Minamoto (Genji) that the world would fall into anarchy and everything would collapse. It is a time of demons.

Next you have the way in which the movie resolves the issue of Yoshitsune's sword training by the Tenku (Raven Goblins) of Karuma. Defeated clans often escaped into the mountains and disguised themselves as demons to scare the locals off. This is said to be where ninja clans began historically. Yoshitsune's depiction in Gojo nicely accommodates all of this.

Then there is Benkei, and the various strains of Buddhism depicted, including a lot of Esoteric Buddhism of the Shingon sect. These are all depicted quite accurately, and just to add a little extra, the movie manages to convey the power of meditation and Ki energy in a way that makes it integral to the story, i.e. it uses magic realism to add an extra dimension to the film but does it in such a way as to make it tactical and menacing.

All-in-all it is filled with fascinating tidbits and rings surprisingly true-to-life for the period. The scenery and the costuming are also completely unmissable and very authentic. The soundtrack is great, very brooding and ominous. I also thought that the actual acting performances were surprisingly good. Benkei is a great brooding anti-hero, Shanao (Yoshitsune)is depicted as a young man testing his limits and growing increasingly drunk on his own power, and Tetsukichi the scavenging sword-smith makes for and interesting depiction of the ""common man"" and his less than flattering opinion of the killers who fancy themselves his social betters.

As to the plot, to see why it is so good, I really suggest you dig up an old book on Japanese history and see how this retelling turns an almost lighthearted Robin Hood vs Little John story into a gory tale of intrigue, violence and infernal karma.",Positive "After leaving TV's popular ""The Andy Griffith Show"", Don Knotts gave movie stardom a valiant try with a series of inane but matinée-pleasing comedy vehicles. Unfortunately, ""The Reluctant Astronaut"", filmed on the cheap (as were most of Knotts' movies), is much worse than his others. Don plays a small town schnook who gets accepted to Astronaut Training camp...but not as a candidate for space travel--they want him as their new janitor! Some may say the weak satire capitalizes on Americans' then-fresh fever for the new age of technology, but the flick is really just a dim excuse to keep restless children occupied. It gets off to a good start, with an OK set-up and nostalgic locations, but it becomes increasingly more spiritless and idiotic. * from ****",Negative "Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...

Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.

Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.

Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.

Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.",Negative "I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. ""The Hurt Locker"" has won more ""Best Picture"" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.

There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie.

But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.

I normally don't care for war movies and ""The Hurt Locker"" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it.",Negative "Not since Spongebob Squarepants have i seen a greater cartoon on TV. The colors are great, the voices could't be better, the characters are so original, great great cartoon. Hope Nickolodean continues to develop this cartoon. Hope the Season DVD comes out soon!!! I love cartoons like this and I hope more people tune in to se this great cartoon. It is very hard to find the Season DVD, so if somebody finds a store that is selling it please let me Know. The only Catscratch merchandise available on Nick Shop is a great lookin shirt, but very very very expensive!!! If you love Spongebob; and who doesn''t?; you'll love Catscratch too!",Positive "This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look ""authentic"". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can.",Positive "Not as bad as you've heard. There are actually some funny parts and Affleck and Applegate have fairly good chemistry. Applegate, in particular, is appealing and likable as Affleck's love interest. James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara are consummate professionals. They're pretty good in just about everything. In the end, ""Surviving"" is not the worst holiday movie you'll ever see.

Unfortunately, it is unfocused and much of the comedy is forced. The attempts at dark humor come off as dour. Affleck tries hard to be endearingly spastic and overenthusiastic but comes across as disturbed. His character's cartoonish nature is brought into high relief when viewed next to Gandolfini and O'Hara's more muted, believable performances. Even by the relaxed standards of holiday movies, you never fully buy into the set-up of Affleck ""renting"" this family for X-mas.

There are also scenes that border on the surreal in their strangeness. The X-mas eve scene replete with incestuous humor (a son being discovered looking at naked, provocative pictures of his mother) that not only isn't funny or believable but disturbing.

To make matters worse, the colors in this film are muddy, almost noirish. The house set on which most of the movie takes place looks stagey and cheap.

""Surviving"" is mostly of interest as the fourth in a string of box office duds (Paycheck, Gigli, Jersey Girl, and this) for Affleck. It remains to be seen how lasting the damage will be.",Negative "According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a ""B"" or ""C"" movie. It is a ""Z"" movie - but an enjoyable and fun ""Z"" movie!",Positive "I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched ""Garam Masala"". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that ""air hostesses"" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous.

The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play ""Boeing Boeing."" The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)",Negative "I saw this recently on a cable channel. The movie is great; it's one of the few musicals I have seen that doesn't shy away from the light and dark. It portrays some of the splendour of the age along with a lot of the squalor. Some of the set piece dance sequences so much is going on, I didn't know where to look next. One day I shall go and see this on the big screen, just so that I see what's happening. But what really lifts this to another level is Oliver Reed's performance as Bill Sykes. Not only is a thoroughly mean and menacing man but there is something else, some inner demons. He gave me the impression that if you pushed him into a corner, he was capable of anything. It was almost as if the Sykes character was on the edge of madness, just awaiting the trigger. I have seen the Robert Newton's Bill Sykes from the 1948 movie, and I thought he was 'just' a bad egg, but Oliver Reed's performance intimidated me in my own living room.",Positive "In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.

",Negative I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one.,Positive "I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w.",Positive "Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .

SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent ""good girls"" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous ""bad girls"" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to ""payback"" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.

Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial ""nice guy"" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.

*1/2 out of ****",Negative "This is the first movie i've seen of John Singleton and he is a pretty good director. The movie starts out with a bunch of incoming freshman and it shows what happens to several of them. Omar Epps plays a track star with a partial scholarship and having a hard time keeping up with his work. He is friends with Ice Cube and beings dating Tyra Banks. Kristy Swanson is a rich girl who is date raped and becomes friends with Jennifer Connelly, who is a lesbian, and isn't sure about which way to go. Michael Rapaport is a kid from Idaho who falls in with a group of Neo-Nazis and their leader is Cole Hauser. Those are the three main characters and Laurence Fishburne is a political science professor who tries to help them. It's a great film and it's unfortunate that the studio had to make several cuts to the movie.",Positive "This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a ""concept only"" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.

The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.

The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.

Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.",Negative "For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV.",Positive "The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly ""present day"") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.

All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called ""Bailey Kent"" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).

Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.",Negative "DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .

Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is "" look after each other and keep talking """,Negative "Wow. Saw this last night and I'm still reeling from how good it was. Every character felt so real (although most of them petty, selfish a**holes) and the bizarre story - middle aged widow starts shagging her daughter's feckless boyfriend - felt utterly convincing. Top performances all round but hats off to Anne Reid and Our Friends in the North's Daniel Craig (the latter coming across as the next David Thewlis).

And director Roger Michell? This is as far from Notting Hill as it's possible to be. Thank God.

Watch this movie!!!",Positive "I've recently watched this movie, in a lazy Sunday afternoon, with some friend of mine and we have a lot of fun! This movie is a masterpiece of trash. Try to watch it with this purpose! It hadn't been expected, of course, but the performance provided by the actors (and Alberto Tomba is absolutely the best), the weak script and the low-cost budget had created an amazing mix of foolish things. Tomba was just retired from alpine ski racing, where he was a dominant technical skier in the late 1980s and 1990s. Tomba won three Olympic gold medals, two World Championships, and nine World Cup season titles. Seriously about the director: nobody knows why Damiano Damiani he has signed this movie. All the other Damiani's directions are considerable.",Positive "I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching ""American history"" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.",Positive "I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words ""Clueless and appalling nonsense."" I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.",Positive "The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, ""The Twelve Monkeys did it."" Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a ""volunteer"" to get some samples from above. After he does his ""volunteer"" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.

Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.

For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece.",Positive "OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was ""The Crocodile Hunter"" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!",Negative "Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.

Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.

Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of ""seeing"" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.

The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.

RATING: 9 of 10",Positive "This film lingered and lingered at a small movie theater in town, and the word-of-mouth buzz got me to see it. A comedy about disabled people - the subject matter keeps lots of people away from a funny and heart-warming film.",Positive "Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like ""cool"" and too many others to keep track of. ""The sistahs are in tha house""!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.

The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.

It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.

The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.

",Negative "I was initially dubious about this movie (merely because of the subject), but the richly drawn characters, the fabulous scenes of the buffalo hunt, and the dramatic conclusion make it well-worth watching. I initially had trouble distinguishing between the two buffalo hunters but as the movie progressed they increasingly distinguished themselves. I am still haunted by the final scene.",Positive "Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.

Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.

In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.

This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.

A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.

A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film.",Positive "At the point in time that The Lady from Shanghai was being made, the marriage of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth was disintegrating. The film was as much an effort by Welles to rekindle the old flames as it was to make a classic noir. Not received well at the time, The Lady from Shanghai has gotten more and more critical acclaim as years pass. Gotten better with age so to speak.

Welles is Irish seaman Michael O'Hara who on a fateful night rescues the beautiful Rita Hayworth from three muggers in Central Park. Sparks do fly, but then comes the rub, turns out the lady is married to crippled, but brilliant criminal attorney Everett Sloane. Nevertheless Sloane takes an apparent liking to Welles and hires him to skipper his yacht.

So far this film is starting to sound a lot like Gilda. If Orson had seen Gilda and was not at this point thinking with his male member, he would have skedaddled back to the seaman's hiring hall in Lower Manhattan. Instead he gets himself involved in a lovely web or intrigue and finds himself pegged for two murders and Sloane as his eminent counsel.

Welles for whatever reason decided that his wife would be a blond in this film. Supposedly Harry Cohn hit the roof as Rita was internationally known for her coppery red hair. This may have soured him on the picture as he joined the legion of studio bosses who saw Welles's vision of independent film making a threat to their power.

Stage actor Glenn Anders plays Sloane's partner Grisby who is one slimy dude, he winds up a corpse. The other corpse to be here is Ted DeCorsia, a bottom feeding private detective who tries to go in business for himself.

It's a good noir thriller, showing Rita at her glamorous best even if she was a blond here. The final shoot out in the hall of mirrors is beautifully staged, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it if one is on any controlled substance.",Positive "This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.",Negative "I saw this movie when I was really little. It is, by far, one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Now, normally, I like weird movies, but this was just a bit too much.

There's not much of a plot to the movie. If anything, it starts out like Toy Story, where toys come to life, and Raggedy Ann and Andy go on an adventure to rescue their new friend, Babette. From there, craziness ensues. There's the Greedy, the Looneys, a sea monster named Gazooks, and a bunch of pirates singing show tunes, all of which just made the movie weirder. Also, I can't help but feel that Babette is annoying and a bit too whiny. She definitely didn't help the movie.

Now, even though I didn't like this movie, there were a few cute parts. I liked the camel's song. Even though it was a song about being lonely, it had a friendly feel to it. Then, there was Sir Leonard. While most of the Looneys were just plain nuts, Sir Leonard was the most interesting and probably the funniest. King Koo Koo was just a little dirtbag that made Dr. Evil look like a serious villain. Also, there was Raggedy Andy's song, No Girl's Toy. It was definitely good song for little boys who wanted to act tough. But, honestly, even these things didn't make the movie any better. (But remember, this is just my perspective.)

While I personally wouldn't recommend this movie, even I have to admit, it does have its charming moments. See it if you're interested, but only if you're in the mood for something ""really"" out of the ordinary.",Negative "After Watergate, Vietnam and the dark days of the Nixon and Jimmy Carter eras, what the world needed was a good old-fashioned chapter-play hero taking on venomous serpents and evildoers in the America of 1936 or the jungles of South America in a series of fantastic cliffhanging adventures. Unfortunately what it got in 1975 was Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze. Perhaps the best that can be said of legendary producer George Pal's final film is that his often beautifully designed but sadly flat adaptation of Kenneth Robeson's pulp-paperback novels probably had George Lucas and Phil Kaufman leaving the theatre and saying to each other ""We can do better than that,"" and adding a bullwhip, a battered Fedora and some much needed character flaws to the mix.

A big part of the problem is that Doc Savage is in many ways even harder to write for than Superman – explorer, adventurer, philanthropist, a scientific and intellectual genius in the bronzed bleach-blonde bulletproof muscle-bound body of a Greek God (or rather the form of TV's Tarzan, Ron Ely, a rather dull Charlton Heston clone here), there's simply nothing he can't do and, more damagingly, nothing that can harm him. The man is the virtual incarnation of Hitler's Aryan ubermensch (no surprise that the DVD is only available in Germany!), albeit with all-American values. And just in case there should ever be anything he's overlooked (not that there ever is) he has not one but five sidekicks in his entourage, the (less than) Fabulous Five. A chemist, an electrician and even an archaeologist I can accept, and at a stretch I could possibly even go as far as to see the possible need for a construction engineer, but what kind of hero takes a criminal lawyer with him on his adventures? In reality Doc's brain trust were probably added because with the hero so tiresomely invulnerable and practically perfect in every way – even Kryptonite wouldn't put a dent in him - there needed to be someone at risk in the stories, though with the exception of Paul Gleason they're all so horribly badly cast and overplayed (as are most parts in the film) you'd happily kill them all off during the opening titles. The villains fare no better, with Paul Wexler exuding all the menace of a geography teacher as Captain Seas, Scott Walker (no, a different one) delivering one of cinema's worst accents (is it meant to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Greek, Pakistani or some nationality no-one has ever heard of?) while Robyn Hilton's Marilyn Monroe-ish dumb blonde moll gives Paris (no relation) a run for her money in the untalented bimbo stakes.

Even with those drawbacks, this should have been much better than it is considering the various ingredients – lost tribes, a pool of gold, a dogfight with a biplane and a deadly poison that comes alive, all wrapped up in a quest to discover why Doc's father was murdered. Unfortunately it's a question of tone: in the 60s and 70s pulp superheroes weren't brooding figures prone to state-of-the-art action scenes and special effects but were treated as somewhat comical figures of low-budget camp fun with action scenes quickly knocked off on the cheap almost as an afterthought, the films aimed purely at the matinée market: you know, for kids. There have long been rumours that the original cut was more straight-faced – and certainly much of the camp value has been added in post-production, be it the Colgate twinkle in Doc's eye, the comical captions identifying various fighting styles in the final dust-up with Captain Seas or Don Black's gung-ho lyrics to John Philip Sousa's patriotic marches – but plenty was in the film to begin with. After all, it's hard to see how one of the villain's underlings making phone calls from a giant rocking crib was ever intended as anything other than a joke that falls flat, while Doc's explanation to Pamela Hensley of why he never dates girls could be a scene written for Adam West's Batman. Instead, the funniest moments are usually purely unintentional, such as Doc displaying his sixth sense by, er, bobbing his Adam's apple.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that, while promising on paper, the action is handled in an almost relentlessly mundane fashion, be it chasing a native assassin on the rooftops of New York skyscrapers or escaping from a yacht full of bad guys. Even the winning notion of animated glowing green snakes swirling through the air as they poison their victims fails to raise any enthusiasm from director Michael Anderson: having demonstrated their own invulnerability a couple of scenes earlier, Doc manages to dispatch them with no more than a chair and an electric fan by simply pulling the curtains on them.

Still, aside from Doc's various vehicles all stamped with his logo and looking more moulded plastic than bronze, the production design is often rather handsome even if it is very obviously L.A. standing in for New York while Fred Koenekamp's cinematography ensures the film often looks good despite the low budget. And it's good to see a superhero movie that doesn't spend most of its running time on an origin story, though one is left with the suspicion that Doc sprang fully formed from the loins of Zeus himself.

It's a film I'd really like to like more, but it just feels like 100 minutes of lost opportunities. No wonder Doc Savage, The Arch Enemy of Evil, the sequel so optimistically promised in the end credits, never happened.",Negative "There is this girl and she's running in the woods but she ends up at this woman's clinic and she wants an abortion. Her daddy is outside in a van and he is all angry about it. The whole episode takes place in and outside of this abortion clinic. I'm not really pro-choice but I wanted the choice to kill this episode. I was laughing when I saw the baby come out and it went into the corner. The part where they were doing the ultra sound was pretty funny too. I was really feeling sorry for the poor dad in this episode. He just wanted to protect his daughter and I couldn't really blame him for what he did. I don't know what happened to him at the end or what happened to the other father and daughter in the waiting room. I was just laughing too hard and I would suggest watching ""Pick me up"" instead of this episode. It wasn't the worst episode but it wasn't that great.",Negative "This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.",Positive "I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!",Negative "Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame ""jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary"" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, ""Here's Johnny"" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!",Positive "....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's ""LA Story"", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.

Yes, naive boys and girls, ""20 Dates"" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.

As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the ""dates"" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as ""the dates"" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.

Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)

You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. ""20 Dates"" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.

It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before ""20 Dates"" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by ""Elie"" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!",Negative """Extreme Makeover: Home Edition"" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.

I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.

But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.

Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.

All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching.",Negative """Fanfan la tulipe"" is still Gerard Philippe's most popular part and it began the swashbuckler craze which throve in the French cinema in the 1955-1965 years.It made Gina Lollobrigida a star (Lollobrigida and Philippe would team up again in René Clair""s ""Belles de nuit"" the same year.

""Fanfan la tulipe"" is completely mad,sometimes verging on absurd .Henri Jeanson's witty lines -full of dark irony- were probably influenced by Voltaire and ""Candide"" .Antimilitarism often comes to the fore:""these draftees radiate joie de vivre -and joie de mourir when necessary (joy of life and joy of death)""""It becomes necessary to recruit men when the casualties outnumber the survivors"" ""You won the battle without the thousands of deaths you had promised me, king Louis XV complains,but no matter ,let's wait for the next time.""

A voice over comments the story at the beginning and at the end and history is given a rough ride:height of irony,it's a genuine historian who speaks!

Christian-Jaque directs the movie with gusto and he knows only one tempo :accelerated.

Remake in 2003 with Vincent Perez and Penelope Cruz.I have not seen it but I do not think it had to be made in the first place.",Positive """I'll Take You There"" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.",Positive "Plot Synopsis: When his wife, a news reporter, is kidnapped & replaced with an android double, Secret Service agent Eric Phillips tracks her down & uncovers a plan by an arms dealer to create an army of invincible androids to assassinate world leaders.

I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this sequel to Richard Pepin's low-budget sci-fi / action hybrid ""Cyber Tracker"". That film was nothing special, not to mention a blatant rip-off of both ""The Terminator"" & ""RoboCop"". This sequel is the same as before, with an all-out action sequence opening the film. There are plenty of explosions, heavy gunfire & a huge bodycount, as well as some martial-arts moves courtesy of the film's star, Don ""The Dragon"" Wilson. The whole film seems like a series of action scenes strung together with minimal plot. On the acting front, Wilson is a bad actor. He really needs a personality transplant.",Negative "Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect ""impossible"" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

",Positive "Impactful film of four city slickers in crisis in Appalachia has become synonymous with rural depravity. Each of four businessmen face their darkest fears when they tackle a challenging whitewater trip, on a river about to be replaced by a dam. When locals along the way decide to ""have their way"" with the interlopers it leads to several deaths and loads of trauma for the survivors. Each of the travelers is outstanding, although Voight gives the lead and strongest performance. The rural scenery and culture is well-captured, including the breathtaking dueling banjos sequence. I saw this on a date when it came out, not exactly the perfect date movie (although we both enjoyed it). I sort of remember this as a break-out dramatic performance for Burt, Voight was already established. Not the sort of movie you could watch every week but it has a strong punch and is beautifully filmed.",Positive "I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like ""Here come 'The Thunderbirds'"" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!",Negative "this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!

first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.

the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!

as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.

the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....

the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......

i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......

the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....

another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......

the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!

all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!

3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!",Negative "This is kind of a weird movie, given that Santa Claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against Satan and his minions...but it's still kinda fun.

It has some genuine laughs...whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable, though. This movie is not good, but I can say I really enjoyed watching it.

I would recommend this movie over ""Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"", ""Santa Claus"" with Dudley Moore and John Lithgow, or ""The Santa Clause"" with Tim Allen.",Negative "For a movie that gets no respect there sure are a lot of memorable quotes listed for this gem. Imagine a movie where Joe Piscopo is actually funny! Maureen Stapleton is a scene stealer. The Moroni character is an absolute scream. Watch for Alan ""The Skipper"" Hale jr. as a police Sgt.",Positive "This was the most visually stunning, moving, amazing and incredible story I've ever experienced. Quite frankly, even those adjectives just cannot describe it. I can't just choose one scene that stood out for me. I suppose if I had to list a few it would be the reactions of the fireman to the crashing sound of jumping victims; the reaction of people trapped in the elevator, who were unaware of what was going on, as they finally emerge to the horrific scene; the shock and disbelief of the onlookers; and finally the silence.

On that day, and even now, I am reminded of Star Wars (1977). Obi-Wan says, `I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.' It is amazing how it is so accurate in its description. There was truly a disturbance in the Force.

This documentary vividly reveals this disturbance. The feelings are so incredibly visual. The anger, the frustration, the shock, the fear, the exhaustion, and the realization of its very magnitude. It's all there. Not a thing is missed.

This is a powerful and most moving documentary and well deserving of the Emmy. Not just because it documents 9/11 but because it is simply everything it should be.

If you plan to watch, be sure to grab a box of tissues. You'll need them. I know that I did.",Positive "I like end-of-days movies. I like B-movies. I was hoping I would like this movie.

I could ignore the poor effects, the often atrocious music, the cringe-inducing lines. I could ignore the unexplained events, and the fact that the movie constantly relies on deus ex machina is excusable, given the subject matter. I could ignore the fact that the people who fight hunger and try to reach world peace are the bad guys. None of these things kill the movie. What kills this movie is that it's just plain and simple boring. Nothing actually happens; almost all scenes in the movie are designed to push the movie creators' morals on the viewers, at the cost of actually having a coherent story, or any kind of suspense.

If you're looking for an entertaining B-movie, look elsewhere. This movie is just boring.",Negative "I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.

I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.

It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.

It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.

The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.

The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.

Overall, a waste of time.",Negative "I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.

Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun.

In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka",Positive "I happened to watch this movie by chance some days ago while flipping channels. My expectations were not very high but it was an interesting movie.In 'A Guy Thing', Jason Lee plays Paul, a straight-laced, Seattle-based fellow who is about to marry his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) and settle down to an unchallenging life of middle-class domesticity. We first meet Paul at his bachelor party, where he professes no desire to engage in any of the normal bachelor party type activities his (surprisingly few) buddies encourage, in case he's a bit naughty and gets into hot bother with his soon to be trouble and strife. Of course, the next thing Paul knows, it's the morning after the night before, he's in bed with a naked hula dancer, and his mother-in-law phones to inform him that Karen is on her way over. Oh, and the hula dancer is Karen's cousin Becky (Julia Stiles).

From this small acorn of potential trouble grows a mighty oak of frenetic misfortune, as Paul scrabbles from misadventure to misadventure, trying to cover up what he's done whilst keeping up the appearance of being a dutiful, family-oriented good guy, who's super-excited about his forthcoming nuptials. His efforts to ensure Karen remains none the wiser about any potential wrong-doing on his part ironically forces Paul closer and closer to the fun-loving Becky, forcing him to question whether he really wants the life that seems to have been mapped out for him. The movie contains the right mix of comedy and romance. Definitely worth a watch.",Positive "Nell Shipman must have been paid a hefty sum of money to promote the Maxwell automobile's off-road capabilities. The plot of the movie is pretty simple, Nell plays a writer who has a bad case of writer's block, and needs inspiration, so she goes to visit Mexico to absorb the atmosphere. There she meets the hero (Bert Van Tuyle), a cowboy who chooses to drive a car rather than ride a horse. While Nell is visiting with her father's partner at his mining camp, a gang of local bandits kidnap her and bring her to their camp deep in the wilderness. The hero needs to get to her quickly, so he decides to drive there in his car. This is where the film takes a weird twist. Bert proceeds to drive over every terrain imaginable, huge rocks, small streams, heavy brush, scraggly tree stumps, steep inclines, etc etc, for the greater part of the film we get to see this car struggling to crawl over obstacles. Now mind you, this isn't a modern-day ATV, it's a 1920 Maxwell automobile, so it looks very out-of-place as an off-road vehicle. And it clearly has limitations for some of the terrain it encounters, we get to see it stuck more than once in this film. But the filmmakers made an effort to show it beating the odds and eventually passing all the obstacles. Once the hero gets to the hidden camp and rescues the girl, he jumps in the car with her and drives off with the bandits in hot pursuit (on horseback), and at this point it became hysterically funny to me. Watching this car slowly rolling over huge rocks, getting stuck in gravel and mountain brush, going forward and back to get momentum enough to pass over fallen tree limbs, the bandits should have had ample time to catch up. But they never do, even though we are to believe this wilderness chase goes on throughout the night. And in a silly climax, the car climbs a mountainside, and helps Nell and the hero push a huge boulder down the side to crush the pursuing bandits.

After seeing this film you would think the army should invest in 1920 Maxwell automobiles because they clearly have better off-road capabilities than Hummers and Bradley tanks combined. Watch this film just for laughs, it's worth it just to see Nell cuddling up to the car grill and saying ""You did your best, brave little car""",Negative "I just went to a screening of the film during Expresion en Corto, a short film festival in Guanajuato, Mexico. One of the producers was there and gave a brief introduction. The Film rolled and from the first shot I was amazed: one long continuous shot of a futuristic Paris in glorious black and white.

I shouldn't go on with the details 'cause I think it is a film worth seeing. The sci-fi story might be found average for many... to me was really good. The action is great, the camera is free to fly everywhere and I mean everywhere. Things you would not be able to do or see is accomplished beautifully. The cast performance is good, in my opinion no one hits the wrong note.

Now, the thing that I found awesome is the animation. 3D grafics look 2D. A BW comic book brought to life. The details on the backgrounds gives more texture as if it had been done by hand (I'm sure it was but when the angles change you see the depth).

The producer at the screening talked about the hard work behind the film: 7 years! The director, she said, is brilliant, but perhaps he was quite unexperienced since he only had one short film in his CV. So, many people had true faith in them. They started their own studio from scratch and ever since they faced the challenge they brought upon them.

Don't miss it. I think you won't regret it... maybe Richard Linklater for the final look of this film is superior to his I think.",Positive "This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.

'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.

Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.

The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.

Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.

Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.

This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.

The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.

9/10.",Positive "Horror Gods Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi should be more than sufficient a reason for any Genre-lover to watch a film, and, even though the most convincing one they are not the only reason to watch this particular little Sci-Fi/Horror gem. While Lambert Hillyer's ""The Invisible Ray"" of 1936 does not nearly share the brilliance of other contemporary films starring Karloff (""Frankenstein, ""Bride Of Frankenstein"", ""The Mummy"",...) or Lugosi (""White Zombie"", ""Island Of The Lost Souls"", ""Dracula"",...), or both (""The Black Cat"", ""The Raven"",...), this is doubtlessly a highly entertaining film that no lover of cult cinema should consider missing. Compared to other Universal Horror pictures, the storyline seems a bit silly, but in a delightful manner. Karloff and Lugosi, of course, shine as always, and the film furthermore profits from great sceneries and an excellent photography. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a brilliant scientist who has invented a technique to look into the past through a telescope, and finds out that a meteor has hit the earth thousands of years ago. Stunned by Rukh's invention, the celebrated French scientist Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), invites him to join an expedition in to find the meteor. In Africa, Rukh makes a discovery that is capable of causing great beneficence and great destruction alike... It is somewhat odd that Karloff, who was in fact British, plays a Hungarian scientist here while Lugosi, who was Hungarian, plays a French Scientist, but they are both excellent as usual. As far as I am concerned, these two Horror Deities could have probably been filmed reading the telephone directory, and I am sure they would have made something out of it - either man is an icon of the Horror genre, and seeing them together is a treat for every fan of the genre. By the way, this is one of the few films, if not the only one, in which it is obvious that Lugosi was actually taller than Karloff. Frances Drake makes a very good female lead in her role of Dr Rukh's beautiful young wife. The rest of the performances are also good, if not particularly worth mentioning. Other than the casting of Karloff and Lugosi, the film's greatest qualities are probably the atmosphere due to great settings and photography, as well as the wonderfully cheesy and highly entertaining storyline. My main complaint is that I would have wished for more screen time for Lugosi, and for his role to have a bit more significance. He is fantastic as always, but his role could have been bigger, and more sinister. Otherwise, ""The Invisible Ray"" is a wonderfully entertaining film which should satisfy every lover of classic Horror/Sci-Fi cinema, and a must-see for all my fellow Lugosi/Karloff fans.",Positive "Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina..",Positive "I don't often give one star reviews, but the computer won't let me do negative numbers.

The opening titles tell us we're in deep water already. Although this is a low budget exploitation film, there are 17 producers credited. No. No.

At the beginning of the story abusive husband Kenneth comes home to his family in an upscale gated community. The house is a pigsty. His wife, Della (Kim Basinger) has let the children run amok all day.

OK. We're already in deep water. Ms. Basinger was 55 years old when the film came out. Uh, are these her children or grandchildren? It's Christmas Eve. Della drives to the mall, a lengthy scene that could have been cut. To bludgeon home the idea of eeeeeeevil male aggression rampant in the universe she drives past football players in full uniform playing in pouring rain on Christmas Eve. Sure. For a bonus she sees a vehicle with a slaughtered deer tied to it.

We get some actual suspense in the driving scenes, though. It's raining and traffic is bad. First we see Della try to drive and smoke at the same time. Then later Della tries to drive and talk on her cell phone at the same time, at one point turning completely around to check the cluttered back seat for the charger for the phone.

She wanders the mall, sees an old friend from college, tries to buy stuff but her credit card is declined- gosh, maybe her husband is grumpy because he's going broke, but that's too complicated for the script to follow.

In the parking lot she runs afoul of the most ludicrous gang in the history of films. One White boy (Lukas Hass watching his career go down the toilet), one Black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. Imagine a company of Up with People gone to the bad and you'll have the idea.

Although they have a gun she gives them attitude. A mall cop comes to investigate the ruckus and they shoot him in the head, firing more than once. The parking lot is crowded as can be, people everywhere, and nobody notices.

Della escapes in her car and rather than choosing a police station or well lighted safe area, she drives to a construction site, where she kills all four bad boys one at a time with simply the tools (literally) at hand.

MAJOR spoiler ahead.

She drives back home. The car poops out so she walks through the pouring rain. Checks on the children, goes downstairs, and when her husband petulantly asks what she got him at the mall shows him the gun and shoots him at point blank range.

The experience with the four punks was supposed to result in personal empowerment for Della. Instead we know that her children will probably spend Christmas in foster care or a group home, because the State will collect them while she answers to murder one charges. The four punks can be classified as justifiable homicide in self defense. The husband, different story.

I'm so glad I saw this on cable. If I'd seen it in a theater (did it get any release?) I'd have been furious. As is, I'm just sad seeing talents like Ms. Basinger and Mr. Haas waste themselves on garbage like this.

One very good thing, though. This was written and directed by Susan Montford. Ms. Montford has not gotten another writing or directing credit since passing this turd. There is justice in the world.",Negative "When I first saw this film on cable, it instantly became one of my favorite movies. I'm a big fan of James Earl Jones and Robert Duvall. The movie paints an accurate picture of the South and the racist attitudes. Most of the attitudes came from Soll, an old plantation owner who uses convicts for labor. Soll is what makes the move, his funny ramblings give us insights in to the way The South was back then. I suppose that if Soll lived today he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. None the less his attitudes towards a little boy who comes to work for him and the convicts is complex. While he has racist views, he's grown to trust some of the convicts who are all black. The two convicts he trusts most are Jackson(Mel Winkler) and Ben(James Earl Jones). The conversations between Ben and Soll are the best in the movie, they have real chemistry. James Earl Jones and Mel Winkler both but in great performances as well as Hass.

This movie should have gotten more notoriety. However it's on DVD and worth the money.

Rayvyn",Positive "This movie completely ran laps around the original Dolemite. It had everything that makes a movie great..except for real actors. (Ernie Hudson couldn't do it alone and you KNOW that! LOL) I admit that I have killed my first video tape of this movie and I plan to buy the DVD version again as soon as possible! This movie has so many catchy lines it's pitiful! I am embarrassed to say that I know the theme song backwards and forwards! I love Jimmy Lynch's character to death, and he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Award in Blaxploitation, but the Oscars were NEVER ready for this! This is a random film consisting of Crooked Cops, Breasts, Chases, Bad Editing, and of course martial arts. (Being that it's the 70's and I can say everyone knew some kind of martial arts). I think this movie should be restored and shown one night in the midst of a marathon in local theaters!",Positive "If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.

However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.

Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.",Negative "A truly adorable heroine who, at turns, is surprised and terrified by giblets, wrestles with mattresses, runs full-on into closed doors ... just a few of the moments that sparkle in my memory of 'The Naked Truth'. I LOVED what I caught of this show: enjoyably daft plots and some good supporting characters provided the setting for the diamond of the show - Tea Leoni as, 'Nora Wilde'; cute, clownish, and wonderfully accident-prone - How refreshing to see an actress who can clown - it's no wonder Hollyood doesn't seem to know how to cast her. But where-oh-WHERE are the DVD releases? The amount of (bleep) they release, it's incredible me that this little gem continues to remain buried. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)",Positive "This film could well have been one of those ordinary ""soapies"" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined…..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!

Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asks…in this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.

Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says… he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.

This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role.",Positive "Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, ""That's it?"" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it.",Negative "Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.

I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.

Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.

To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.

There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'

Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.

'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)

The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?

Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?

Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.

When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.

I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'

What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.

Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.

At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?

Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.

I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.

Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.

In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again.",Negative "I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.",Negative "A great movie. Lansbury and Tomlinson are perfect, the songs are wonderful, the dances, with a particular mention for the ""Portobello Ballet"" are gorgeous. As for the animated section, the match between animals has become an instant classic; the climax with the attack of the armatures is chilling and fascinating. I recommend to see the restored 134 minutes version or at least the 112 minutes video. Here in Italy we have only the 98 minutes version, although the film was presented in its original release at the running of 117 minutes. If possible, watch also the German videocassette: it was generated from the 98 minutes running but it's missing of every refer to World War II and of all the scenes between English people and their Nazi invaders!",Positive "Not sure if it was right or wrong, but I read thru the other comments before watching the short.I have to say I disagree with most of the negative comments or problems people have had with it.

As a first time ""Lone Wolf"" director/producer,I like to see things that I can aspire to,not necessarily from the pro's, but by people just getting their feet wet like me.

If indeed this is also from a first-timer,as I read,I applaud the effort.Marvelous job then in that respect! There were some comments about the music.I thought it was quite nice for the piece.Some say it kind of droned along for a while, but I found that created tension without(us)necessarily being conscious of it, and when he pulled the gun out and the guitar started crunching chords,it was like we knew there was a train on the tracks, but realize it is just now moving. Yes there is a 180 degree slip/clip in there, but shi* happens.Did anyone else see Hugh's dirty shirt turn white (near the end,in the rain) in ""Australia""? Look how much money and people were behind that movie! Give the kid a break for Gods sake! All in all I think it was very well done. Only 2 things I would have mentioned are hardly worth mentioning-Don't walk up to a shiny brass picture frame with the camera, and I would have just displayed the splatter at the beginning shots to a still shot, so people wouldn't necessarily know what it is.

My experience so far has taught me that it's not that it's hard to make a movie,it just takes time to learn how to do it,then the time to actually do it, and then you better take some more time still to think of all the details you'll need to have shot before you call ""post-production time!"" IMHO, it looks like director/writer Ryan Jafri did his homework, and if this indeed is his first report card, I'd give him an ""A"". The rest of you report to the principals office for a whuppin'.",Positive "** Warning - this post may contain spoilers **

I only got a Gamecube in September 2005, and the first two games I bought were James Bond games, the decent Agent Under Fire and the dull Goldeneye Rogue Agent. The next game I planned to get was Everything or Nothing, because my friend told me that it was better than the two games I already had. I have to say, he was right.

I bought this for a tenner in HMV, and when I got home, I slammed it in to my Cube and played it for hours on end. It was much better than my other two games, and there was a much better and more interesting storyline. Graphics were some of the best I have seen (but now that the XBOX 360 has come out, Farcry Instincts Predator has some of the best graphics known to man). The storyline was clever; mad man (Willem Dafoe, named as Nikolai Diavolo) and beautiful henchwoman (Heidi Klum, named as Katya Nadanova), try to destroy the world with tiny nanobots, which at the start of the game, you, James Bond, have to destroy on a train. The bad thing is that one of them is hidden in Katya's boobs. You then have to thwart their plans and save the world.

The great thing about this game is that it actually has actors voicing the characters, such as Cleese voicing Q. There are 27 levels, some of them short and some of them pretty long and tricky.

Gameplay - 10/10 Graphics - 9/10 Sound - 9/10 Replay value - 7/10 Multiplayer - 8/10

I give this game a grand total of 90%",Positive just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!!,Positive "Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.",Negative "This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.",Positive "a romance without feeling, a drama of issues without point (or drama).... This film is supposed to be all these and fails on each and every account, as if it isn't trying. Or as if the director/editor/scriptwriter team isn't really trying. The actors are able--they need better support.

One element that doesn't fail is the score by George Delarue. Beautiful and moving. What a shame it's attached to this film. In a good film actors' words and movements and music synchronize and enhance the impact. This editor plastered on music with no regard for dialogue and movement. The love scene is particularly grating in this respect: an insult to the talents of the lead actors.

There is another element in the film that works: location photography. Notably one moment in Grand Central Station. I'd guessed in advance what was going to happen; but how it was filmed in that setting was breathtaking.

Some commentators on this board have pointed out that US assimilation of criminal Nazi scientists actually happened during these years of the MacCarthy scare. The moment the film seems to start looking seriously at American society, it switches into conventional romance; before any human feelings can move us, it's away on a (predictable) 'thriller' escapade.

Just as the film insults the talents of the actors, it insults the issues it's pretends (and fails) to take up.

You are warned.",Negative "There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.

As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",Negative "Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.",Negative "Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.",Negative "Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little.",Positive "Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio.

Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the ""phantom."" He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as ""hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat,"" etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.

We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the ""little guy.""

These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.",Negative "Just plain good old stupid.

I mean really stupid, not the good stupid like Killer Tomatoes, or Ed Wood movies, this is probably the most stupid movie I ever have seen. To give this movie an golden Turkey is an insult to turkeys. To call this movie dumb is offensive even to dumb people.

If this is the future of American cinema and art we are better off to really start world war 3 and 4 at the same time and let the cockroaches run the show after.

Now I have to get drunk to wash this insult to my single braincell off....

This is a really good movie if you are suicidal.",Negative "My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.

When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.

This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead.",Negative "All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.

In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.

W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the ""Black Maria"" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.

During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.

The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.

With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.

The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the ""fairground barker"" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.

And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public.",Positive "I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.

Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).

The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.

Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.

My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)",Negative "I saw a lot films about Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. But this one is the best of all! There is an atmosphere which is exactly the same as in the book. The actors (George C. Scott and others) are great! Unfortunately, you can't often watch the film in Germany and Switzerland.",Positive "089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number ""Shanghai Lil,"" which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway…this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7"", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the ""Shanghai Lil"" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933).",Positive "Sinnui yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her",Positive "I did not expect a lot from this movie, after the terrible ""Life is a Miracle"". It turns out that this movie is ten times worse than ""Life ..."". I have impression that director/writer is just joking with the audience: "" let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain"". Dialogues are empty, ... scenario is minimalistic. In few moments, photography is really nice. Few sarcastic lines are semi-funny, but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this ""comedy"". I've laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. If you can lift yourself above this director's fiasco, ... you will find good acting of few legends (Miki Manojlovic, Aleksandar Bercek), and very good performance of Emir's son Stribor Kusturica.

In short: too bad for such a great director ! Emir Kusturica is still young and should be making top-rated movies. Instead, he chooses to do this low-budget just-for-my-private theater movie, with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans.",Negative "I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to.

Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it.

From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.

Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life.

I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a ""friend"".",Negative "I had the opportunity to see this film twice at the 2006 Moving Picture Festival In Birmingham, Alabama. I enjoyed it so much that I watched it a second time when they had an encore screening.

When I think of the films that are shown at festivals, I usually expect them to be edgy and offbeat, often with the feel of an elaborate student project. There's nothing wrong with these types of projects of course, and I enjoy the unique styles of independent films, but sometimes I want to see a more mainstream approach to independent film-making. By ""mainstream,"" I mean more like a film produced for national release - In other words, a movie that you would see in a regular movie theater.

The writing, directing, cinematography, casting and acting in this movie are all totally pro. There is nothing typically independent about this film. As an aspiring director, I am always looking for movies that will motivate me to stop procrastinating and push harder to get my career going. This is one of those films. As I watched The Big Bad Swim, my motivation level was incredible. I felt like my adrenaline had kicked in. The reason I felt this way was because I was so impressed with every aspect of this production. I left the theater excited and ready to start writing that long put-off project. When a movie makes me feel like that, I know it's really good. This is the first feature-length project from Ishai Setton and I found myself wishing that It had been my project. For me, that's really rare.

See this film. It's beautifully shot and directed, and the casting is excellent. Paget Brewster delivers a very believable and likable performance. She has a quality about her, a charisma, that really draws you in and keeps you focused on her any time she is on screen. She makes you feel like you know her personally as a friend. That's a gift. I think the industry is really missing out by not utilizing her acting abilities more often. Jeff Branson and Jess Weixler also did top-notch jobs. I can not say enough nice things about The Big Bad Swim. I look forward to future projects from all of those involved in its production.",Positive "Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3",Negative "In the days before gore and sex took over, real horror films were made. Castle of Blood is, in my estimation, one of the finest, although other reviewers have given it mixed ratings. In an odd sort of way it reminds of the more recent The Others, which was in the theaters a couple of years ago.

Director Antonio Margheriti remade his own picture in 1970 titling it this time Web of the Spider (AKA Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno). Why he did this I do not understand, although the remake starred Anthony Franciosa and Klaus Kinski and was very good in its own right. Perhaps he saw a good story and wished to tailor it more to American audiences. I do not really know. It is interesting that he did the original in black and white and the remake in color.

Castle of Blood is excellent Italian Gothic. La Danza Macabra is said to be an unpublished work of Edgar Allen Poe, who ""appears"" in this film. Poe and Lord Blackwood, owner of a haunted castle, bet American writer Alan Foster (George Riviere) that he cannot spend All Souls Night in said castle and survive. Foster eagerly accepts the bet but soon regrets it, for he is witness to a series of murders committed by ghosts. It seems that the ghosts come back to life once every few years but are doomed to re-enact the crimes they committed in life. Lord Blackwood conveniently forgot to tell Foster that his blood is needed for them to resurrect themselves on the next All Souls Night!

It does not take Foster and the beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (portrayed by the incomparable Barbara Steele) long to fall in love, even though their romance is doomed, because Elisabeth is one of the ghosts. I will not give the ending away, but will just say that Castle of Blood is every bit a romantic tragedy as it is a horror story.

Comments. This film is greatly atmospheric, even by the excellent standards of the Italians. My personal opinion is they do true horror better than anybody, and the somewhat dim black and white filming only enhances this. In fairness, Web of the Spider was fine in its own right, even with color and greater brightness. I loved the lingering shots, something most modern day directors do not have the patience for. Indeed, when Alan first enters the doomed castle, we are treated to several minutes of him doing nothing but roaming around from room to room, the dread ands unease building in his face and mannerisms. By the time the first ghost appears, the audience is thoroughly primed and ready. There is wonderful dialogue between Alan and the ghosts, something else not often done in standard ghost stories. There are also memorable scenes, very visual for this type of film. Elisabeth's ""murder"" and the dance scene (reminds somewhat of the similar dance of the ghouls in 1962's Carnival of Souls) were particularly good.

Sadly, few general interest viewers will ever hear of, much less see, this film. That is a shame, for this one is a cut above the rest. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and am not certain if it can be purchased anywhere else. For persons interested in this genre, it is a must see.",Negative "I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the ""skits"" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!",Negative "I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.",Positive "I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another ""Bad News Bears"" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is ""Numero Uno"".

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.",Negative "Pinjar is a genuinely good film, with great acting, good narrative, good presentation, touching emotions, etc.

It seems to me that the quality of films that Bollywood is producing is quite improving these days, and this film is one evidence.

No Bollywood movie that I can remember of made such an impact on me - I was literally thinking about the movie for hours - marvelling at the various emotional situations that test the human in a human.

The film rests on the great acting of Urmilla Matondkar, and also some from Manoj Bajpai. Urmilla plays a girl in North India in the background of the partition, and all troubles seem sweet if compared with the problems she happens to face.

A must-see film. A technically superior Bollywood product, which I feel is comparable to the best movies coming out of other countries in the world.",Positive I wanted to see this movie ever since it was first advertised on TV. I went to Tinsel Town to see it Last Night at 7:40. I regret the day that wasted my ticket on this trash when I could of saw something better. The beginning was all a bunch sex trash and cliches. They exaggerated the way love works in reality. All of the girls were stereo types. The boyfriend was too stupid for his own age. The passing gases that the pregnant girl kept having barely got any laughs. The bank robbery was completely boring with gags that have been used in other movies. Their getaway car was an old beat up Chevy van that they claimed that had no breaks. Hey why didn't they get nice girlish vehicle for the robbery instead? It might have boosted the audience opinion about the movie. This movie was very low low low low low budgeted since nothing in there was damaged or destroyed. This movie had a lot of stuff in it that would drive Christian people nuts. Hey I even expected a car chase scene because all bank robbing movies have car chases but I but there was never any. So I rate this movie b which stands for low budgeted and 1 out of ten stars.,Negative "The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.",Positive "Oh my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!

It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!

First of all, G-girl? Are you kidding me. Get real that sounds like some kind of new Barbie doll.. Super Women? Are you kidding me. It was so fake fake fake fake. The people of the town didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!

Jesus, was it just me or did this movie seem offensive?? I guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double D's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!

If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed AND in the air.. than they totally had love!

It was pathetic, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, than he was dating G-girl.. than they broke up than he dated that Hannah girl.. and.. it just goes on.

I have to say this movie made me wonder.. How the hell did they get this in theaters??!!

Avoid this movie at all costs.",Negative "Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.",Positive "Overall I was rather impressed with the pilot. The initial first fifteen minutes were worrying, as it did feel the creators were trying to create a science fiction version of The O.C but this fear is rectified when a terrorist incident occurs and from here the show steps into themes and situations that I very rarely see television tackle.

BSG dealt with themes such as monotheism, existentialism, reality, death and terrorism but they were primarily subtext, there for the viewer to contemplate on or ignore if they so choose. Here on the other hand these subjects are the focus of the show and I personally found myself evoking such works as Ghost In The Shell and The Matrix as reference points while watching and being surprised by how well the themes were being discussed. I think if you are a fan of the two I just mentioned or other films/television shows, which deal with the subjects I referenced, I think you will find at least something here.

In terms of a starting point to explain how the situation we know in BSG came about I believe they handled it in a very interesting way, I especially liked how they explained where the Cylon's belief in one God came from and the creation of Caprica had just enough advanced and contemporary technology thrown in to make it appear in the future but not completely alien to us as viewers.

The only real weak points I noticed were the relationship between the Greystone parents and the actress who plays 'Lacy Rand'. While I like Eric Stoltz and Paula Malcomson individually, together their scenes seemed to lack chemistry, at this point it could simply be down to developing their characters, but this is something I think needs work. I also found Magda Apanowicz to be unconvincing in her role. This again could be down to experience and time needed to develop, but throughout the episode her acting appeared forced and not completely confident.

Based on the pilot I greatly look forward to seeing where 'Caprica' goes in the future and hopefully it will touch the greatness that BSG once did.",Positive "

I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying ""at least it wasn't The Omega Code.""

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!",Negative "This is a tongue in cheek movie from the very outset with a voice-over that pokes fun at everything French and then produces a rather naif but very brave hero in Fanfan La Tulipe. Portrayed by the splendid Gerard Philippe, the dashing young man believes utterly in the fate curvaceous Lollobrigida foretells - notably that he will marry King Louis XV's daughter! Problem is, La Lollo soon find outs she too is in love with Fanfan...

Propelled by good sword fights, cavalcades, and other spirited action sequences the film moves at a brisk pace and with many comic moments. The direction is perhaps the weakest aspect but the film is so light and takes itself so un-seriously that I could not give those shortcomings a second thought. Look out for Noel Roquevert, a traditional heavy in French films, trying to steal La Lollo, making himself a nuisance, and feeding the script to the fortune teller that reads La Lollo's hand! And what a gem Marcel Herrand is as the megalomanous and lust-driven King Louis XV! That is not all: So many beautiful women in one film makes me wish I were in France and on the set back in 1952! The film may have come out that year but its verve, cheek, superb narration, immaculate photography and the memorable Gerard Philippe ensure that it remains modern and a pleasure to watch. I would not hesitate to recommend it to my grandchildren let alone to anyone who loves movies in general and swashbucklers in particular! Do see it!",Positive "You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.

I want my money back !!!",Negative "To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER

3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.

4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.

rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale

thank you I am as always

JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN",Negative "Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.

This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.

Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.

The jokes were lame and not funny at all.

The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.

At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.

And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.

In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual ""chick flick""). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you.",Negative "I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).

Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.

Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.

Overall i thought this film was fantastic.",Positive "While Fred Schepisi's ""I.Q."" doesn't really have any important qualities, it's still worth seeing. Walter Matthau plays Albert Einstein, trying to help mechanic Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) fall in love with Princeton mathematics doctoral candidate Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan). Probably the funniest scene is when Dr. Frizzyhead and friends (Lou Jacobi, Gene Saks and Joseph Maher) try to make Ed look like a scientist: he ends up looking like a French impressionist.

Obviously little of the movie is historically accurate, but that's not the point. It's not intended as anything except a light comedy, quite the opposite of Robbins's most famous movie from 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption). A movie about Einstein's whole life would have to focus not only on his scientific achievements, but also his political activism, namely how he wrote a letter on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine and came out against nuclear weapons (it got to the point where the FBI kept a file on him).

So anyway, this one is acceptable. Also starring Stephen Fry, Tony Shalhoub, Frank Whaley, Charles Durning and Keene Curtis.",Positive "After seeing Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, no actor should ever display such conceit as to imagine that he could ever come close to Mr. Brett's portrayal of ""one of the most interesting characters in literature"". Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes and in my opinion there can be no other. The great actor Basil Rathbone is,I must admit, a close second but, is still second. One might make the argument that Mr. Rathbone's screenplays were inferior to the absolutely top notch productions afforded Mr. Brett and to this I would agree. However when all is said and done Jeremy Brett will always and forever be the only actor to truly ""become"" Sherlock Holmes. The book should be closed on this subject and we,the public,left to enjoy Mr.Brett's unique performances.

Bill Rogers

(sonarman65@yahoo.com)",Positive this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya,Negative "The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances.",Negative "I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties.",Positive "I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.

I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:

· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.",Negative "If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, ""My kid!"", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.",Positive "The movie is wonderful. It shows the man's work for the wilderness and a natural understanding of the harmony of nature, without being an ""extreme"" naturalist. I definitely plan to look for the book. This is a rare treasure!

",Positive "Watching ""Speak Easily"" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz.

Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, ""Tell me about the rabbits, George."" (Post would have said something like, ""Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'."") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help.

There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.

If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch ""Speak Easily"" with friends, a la ""Mystery Science Theater 3000"". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.",Negative "Well, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.

Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read ""Women in Love,"" I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.

To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with ""Mommie Dearest"" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.

Grade: D",Negative "This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation ""it was always just the Two Of Us""! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of ""Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin"". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.",Negative "I have been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time.",Negative "Much in the same way Frank Miller and his Sin City comics used black and white to express itself (and its film noir influences), so does Christian Volckman with Renaissance.

It is the year 2054, in Paris. In the tradition of science fiction, the future is a bright, sparkling multi-teared jewel. This is a jewel in a setting of misery, inequity and darkness; bright and beautiful on top with a dark underbelly beneath. One of these ""bright"" people at the top, a research scientist from a very large and influential global company (Avalon), is kidnapped. The well known and efficient, Captain Karas (voiced by the new James Bond himself - Daniel Craig), is assigned the task to find her.

The plot and layout is not overly original. It is heavily influenced by film noir, Gibson's Neuromancer and other detective stories, along with movies like Blade Runner, Sin City, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Minority Report. There is the main plot, surrounded by other possible sub-plots that all connect at the end. It is not hard to figure it all out.

The movie's strength and originality is in its intense visual presentation. Paris is an intricate array of levels and sub-levels. At its base is the more primitive industrial infrastructure. As the city rises, so does its architectural complexity and luminescence. Yet in this structure, the top does not equate with elevation of human ideals and behavior. Paris has been intricately animated and laid out in brilliant black and white. The movie is closer in spirit with Sin City (the comics) then Sin City the movie was with its source material. This is done all the more easy, because it is still remaining in relatively the same medium; animation. Much in the same way as a Scanner Darkly pushed the visual aspects of story telling, so does this. The light and dark, black and white creates an atmosphere of contrasts, as well as visual ambiguity. Right and wrong, black and white can lose all meaning at the same time it is right in front of us. The movie proves how black and white can be both ambiguous and obvious at the same time.

In keeping with the spirit of the movie, I can be both critic and fan. I can love and loath in the same light. It is definitely an experience I recommend for lovers of the visual arts. So pour another Black and Tan, enter the void and enjoy the ride.",Positive "This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).

The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from ""A clockwork orange"") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.

To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See ""A clockwork orange"" or ""Le pianiste"" instead.",Negative "Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.",Negative "Legend of Dragoon is one of those little-known games that people either love or hate. Some people claim it's far too similar to other games, namely the Final Fantasy series--which is understandable, since it was originally intended to be Sony's equivalent of Final Fantasy. Honestly I can't comment on the similarities beyond that, as I'm not very familiar with the FF games.

I think my favorite aspect of the game is the battle system. Not only do you have the ability to change into a more powerful dragoon form, but every time you attack, you have to pay attention in order to complete the attack by pressing buttons at the correct time. Not only that, sometimes enemies will attack you back right in the middle of a sequence, which means you have to press different buttons in order to avoid taking damage. Even the use of certain attack items requires a bit of button-mashing. If you don't want to attack, you can always guard, which not only cuts any damage taken in half, but raises your hit points without the use of healing potions.

The FMVs are quite well-done, about the same quality as Final Fantasy 8's. However, the graphics during game play aren't quite up to that standard. They're nice, but they could have been--and honestly, should have been--better. The translation as well leaves something to be desired. Not only does it raise interesting character relationship questions, but there are also some grammatical mistakes that simply shouldn't have been allowed to pass.

Another thing I found interesting was that you lose main party characters--one dies, and the other basically becomes useless to the party and leaves. While the death of the one character is often said to have no point, it makes you realize early on that the characters, while heroes, are still just as mortal as the next person. The people who replace the lost characters simply gain all their stats, so the transition game play-wise is fairly smooth. Perhaps my one complaint about the characters is the main character's love interest, Shana. She is the epitome of the helpless female in need of rescuing, pathetic to the point of driving a player to screaming with frustration. While you can use her in your party, she is insanely weak--I don't even know what her dragoon powers are like, as I disliked her so much I never used her. The character Rose, by contrast, is probably my favorite female character in any game ever. She's no wimp, and some of her dragoon magic is extremely useful. Meru is quite strong as well, while sometimes being an annoying talkative brat.

The character designers were, as most are, inclined to make the female characters appear pretty or whatever, and didn't give much thought to the actual usefulness of the outfits. Seriously, no armor and having most of your skin exposed is not helpful when fighting monsters. But I will give them props, as they do have females serving as knights in the various countries.

I can't comment much on the plot, as honestly I didn't pay much attention to it beyond where I needed to go to next. I'm not sure if this says something about the plot itself, or my gaming style.

All in all, it's a very enjoyable game. It has its flaws, but for me it struck just the right balance of having to think and just pressing buttons and killing monsters.",Positive This film surprised me a little. I watch a lot of horror/sci-fi films and this is a straight-to-video release that caught me off guard a little. I believe this is Full Moon's best movie thus far and one of Jeffrey Combs best performances. Good movie.,Positive Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME!,Positive "This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.

I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.

And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.

Sigh. I give it a 1.",Negative "I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck.",Negative "This movie stars Emily Watson, of Breaking the Waves fame. This movie about one man's obsession takes place at a resort where a chess tournament is being held. A chess master arrives and shortly after falls madly in love (at first sight) with a woman, played by Emily Watson. She falls for this oddball of a man, who is obsessed with chess. This is all at the dismay of her mother, who is far more interested in seeing her with another young gentleman; a proper gentleman. Her mother feels that this is just a passing fancy for the young woman, as she has a tendency to take in odd animals and such. What ensues is mostly a journey through the man's psyche. It tells the story of how his past is closely tied with his present. Emily Watson is amazing in this, as well as the actor who plays the main character. It is definitely slow, but is well worth the watching. The ending was even satisfying. :)",Positive "Boring, badly written Italian exploitation flick.Lots of nudity, gore and awful acting.The werewolf makeup was the only thing that would raise a laugh.Complete rubbish-even for fans of cheesy Italian horror.Please avoid.",Negative "A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.

The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes.",Positive "Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10",Positive "I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!",Positive "This very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition ""Blazing Saddles"". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first ""Punisher"" movie and ""Iron Eagles 3"". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.

My Grade: F",Negative "This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem.

The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie ""no more support from me."" How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention.",Negative "About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.",Negative "I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.

As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).

That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.

Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.",Negative "Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world.",Positive "First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.

I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.",Negative """The big goodbye"" introduces us to the first holodeck adventure, in this case Captain Picard posing as private investigator Dixon Hill. This episodes creates some sort of standard pattern, repeated several times on TNG as well as DS 9 and Voyager. After entering the holodeck something goes wrong and the characters have to deal with the program under different circumstances beyond playing a game (represented by the failure of the holodeck's safety program).

This concept is used to expand Star Trek's possibility and enabling a kind of genre-mix. Picard's Dixon Hill stories are examples of 1940s crime fiction and their representation on the screen are referred to as Film Noir often having the stereotype antihero in the lead (see for example Chandler's Marlowe stories or Polanski's all time classic ""Chinatown""). Star Trek never focuses on the story (mostly it's a simple ""how-do-we-get-out-of-here"" scenario) but enables the actors to take a different approach to their characters. Those Holodeck ""games"" are commonly used for recreation and reflect the private interests of the crew members. Therefore the technical aspect is always neglected and from that point of view the stories are never sound (but did Star Trek ever had a technical, scientific point to it, I mean besides some utopic concepts?).

""The big goodbye"" shows a relaxed Patrick Stewart, a McFadden that hardly ever looked better in a Star Trek episode (at least the early ones) and Data has some great scenes, too (although I find it hard to believe that pulling the lamp's plug out of the wall would have really surprised him, for the fact that he'd done research on that period and its customs). Wesley continues turning peaceful Trekkies into potential murderers (why didn't they take him to the holodeck and let the gangsters finish him off?) but all in all this one's fun...",Positive "Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.",Positive "I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10",Negative "I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10",Negative "Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.

The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.

Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.

One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.

Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants.",Positive "The first time i saw it i got half of it but i watched and i knew later on it was about a salem witch trials. They focused on the Sara Good's family. SHE is famous for cursing a priest which came true. In the film it depicts her daughter dorcas and her husband the spirit of Ann Putnam Sara's husband comes to the future hunts this girl to redeem her soul. which does happen at the end of the movie. Dorcas is depict as witch at 5years old who is burned at the stake. Which never happen Ann putnam saves her from the flames. the girl is safe she goes to Ann putnam's grave to to see that is not empty but it is at first because she accuse her of witchcraft, and lets her burn to death. Now that ann putnam saves her her spirit is redeemed, and she is not a outcast to society for the salem witch trials.",Positive "

I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly ""supernatural"" explanation (""vampires""), but turns out to be a very mundance one.

Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's ""Before Dawn"" and the (more famous) ""Mark of the Vampire"".

The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very ""spooky atmosphere"", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a ""corpse"" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!

If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!

Norm Vogel",Positive "I just saw this recently, after an interval of nearly forty years. It holds up well, especially Lionel Bart's outstanding songs. (""Who Will Buy"" with it's magical counterpoint, just one of many standouts.)

I disagree with the other post that decried its G rating. The ratings system, brand new at the time, never intended the G (General) rating to mean ""completely devoid of conflict"".

Characterizing it as unsuitable for kids reminds me of the description I once saw of The Wizard of Oz: A girl arrives in a strange land and kills the first person she encounters. She then goes on a road trip with three male companions and kills again.",Positive "Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars.",Positive "I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.

Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to.",Negative "We're talking about a low budget film, and it's understandable that there are some weaknesses (no spoilers: one sudden explosives expert and one meaningless alcoholic); but in general the story keeps you interested, most of the characters are likable and there are some original situations.

I really like films that surprise you with some people that are not who they want you to believe and then twist and turn the plot ... I applaud this one on that.

If you know what I mean, try to see also ""Nueve Reinas"" (Nine Queens) a film from Argentina.",Positive "I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.

But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.

I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says ""You're FIRED"" is just insulting.

after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.",Negative "In the year 1985 (my birth year) Steven Spielberg directed an emotionally strong and unforgettable story of a young African-American girl Celie (Debut role for Whoopi Goldberg) whose life is followed through rough times. The story begins from the year 1909 when Celie is only 14 years old. She has given birth two children for her father. Celie has a younger sister Nettie with whom she is inseparable. A widower lays his eyes on Nettie but their father gives Celie to him. It is the beginning of an era of horrible abuse and constant controlling. Women are inferior of men and especially being an African-American woman their rights are less than a zero. Celie's story is a true survival story.

""The Color Purple"" is a master-piece and underestimated film of Spielberg. He should make more drama which ""The Color Purple"" and ""Schindler's List"" are good notion.

The cast is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg is known better as a ravingly funny comedienne but the introducing role as Celie is a remarkable word that she really can pull of heavy drama. Danny Glover was surprisingly nasty ""Mister"". I have never seen him in a such an evil role. The talk-show icon Oprah Winfrey is brilliant as a strong-willed Sofia.

Warning! Prepare to have a number of tissues with you when watching this film. You can really connect to the story of the strong sisterhood. Especially if you have as close relationship with your siblings like I have with my sister.

Big applauds to Mr. Spielberg!",Positive "Hey guys I'm actually in this movie! I didn't even know it was on this site until i looked a few years ago and i was so surprised! I played Pete, the main characters son. It was a great experience and i loved every minute of it. While filming they needed me to be in two places at once, so they used my twin sister as a body double! The finger that pushes the radio button in the car is hers not mine. I still act and do some TV, but not as much. Oh and if you want proof my name is the first one at the top of the scroll.

Review: I thought the movie was okay but if i wasn't in it, it wouldn't be one of my favorites. I thought the acting was really good, but the story line was only so-so.",Positive "In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.

But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.

Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade.

One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.

But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.

Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.

I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.

I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.",Negative "First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.

As they say ""the road to hell is paved with good intentions."" Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war ""effort"" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?

The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.

Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said ""It's funny 'cause it's true"" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/",Negative "I thought they should have called this movie ""Whites"" instead of ""Heights"". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.",Negative "I just got back from a screening a couple of hours ago, and I was very happy with the movie when I left it. It's very intense, and the closest I've come to crying in a movie in quite some time. That is a credit to Adam Sandler, who delivers a magnificent performance on many levels, and who probably deserves an Oscar nom for it, were it not coming out so early in the year. Don Cheadle gives his usual superb performance playing the straight man to Adam's disturbed.

There is some humor, but most of it is really only funny in comparison to the tearjerking moments, as Adam deals with his loss and Don struggles to help him. Adam plays two levels very well... when he is mentally stable he is funny and likable, but when he is, well, less stable he's powerful and dark.

I recommend it for anyone who likes intense mental dramas about difficult friendship and loss.",Positive "This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. ""Little"" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. ""Little"" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and ""Little"" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended.",Positive "Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.",Negative "This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!",Negative "If anyone is wondering why no one makes movies like they used to, with conversation, character and a simple theme of friendship struggling to evolve into something new, better and different, those folks need to take in this film and see top notch writing, directing, and acting that melds into a wonderful evening of observation on how things used to be in Italy and England. Other days, other times funneled into a terrific comedy of entertainment, made in 1992 with Alfred Molina, Joan Plowright, Polly Walker, Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, and Michael Kitchens in the major roles. Under the brush stroke direction of Mike Newell, these actors accomplish vividly memorable performances that are photographed with a sublimely subtle painter's eye. Reminiscent of the theatrical bedroom farce of the turn of the century, this film might be called a friendship farce that becomes a worthwhile experience in the growth of the romantic nature within each character, and the viewer, too. An artistic telegram on the importance of caring about those around us.",Positive "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** If one were to review the film based on the premise alone, one might think that you were looking at an average animal orientated horror flick. The plot is as follows. A group of documentary filmmakers head off to an island in order to film a documentary about surfing with sharks or blood surfing. (I live in South Africa so it was released as ""Blood Surf."") Admittedly, this seems to have a somewhat interesting idea behind it which, if it were explored further, could have improved the movie somewhat. However, this is not the case as the blood surfing part of the movie is minimal due to the fact that their documentary is interrupted by a rather large salt-water crocodile.

The script is absolutely terrible. A good example of this is whenever someone gets eaten by the crocodile which is a frequent occurrence in this film, no one seems to give a damn. The most anyone person did in the film was to merely toast the victim in a scene which was meant to be poignant but just ended up being laughable due to the fact that the dialogue in this film was of a highly dubious nature. Another thing that really irritates about this film is the fact that they introduce characters who are totally superfluous to the film itself. They introduce a bunch of pirates who can only be seen to be adding another 10 minutes to a mercifully short film.

The acting can be said to be mediocre. It probably would have been a lot more impressive if they did not have such a terrible script to work from. All in all there isn't one person who made a terrible impact on me. Every single person seemed to be a watered-down caricature and in this way, not one of these actors made any sort of impact on me.

The crocodile itself is said to be huge, over 31 feet exactly and this sense of size is well portrayed by the obvious fake of a crocodile that they have provided for us in the film. The crocodile's death at the end of the film is so ridiculously fake and contrived that it makes one's stomach turn. With a huge cry of bravado, the hero of the film announces that he has a plan which turns out be falling down a hill and getting the crocodile to impale himself on a luckily-placed spike at the bottom of this said hill.

All in all, I would say that this film is one which has to be seen for you to believe how bad it could be. What probably seemed like a good idea at the time suffered from a terrible script and an overwhelming sense of low-budgetness which all served to create a truly awful movie.",Negative "i totally disagree.i thought that this was a great movie for kids.dawn wells from gilligans island,and promise shown of a barely then known dana plato.it was disneylike and for that it can hardly be disregarded as meaningless fluff.no it wasn't scary and wasn't meant to be.i wont ruin the ending.but it was unusual the way that it was done.i mean the kids characters were great and i didn't know what to expect in the end.the basic plot also had a lot more to do with these kids than you say the fact that these kids were expert fishermen is very central to the plot especially initially.it also helps them out of a jam towards the end.it also has the plus of not being overly long.i think it clocks in at under 95 minutes",Positive "Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, ""deep real love""… You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no – all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the ""super-deep"" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.

Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.",Negative "That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.

Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a ""blockbuster"" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.

The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only ""horror"" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a ""drama/thriller"".

But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.

My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.",Negative "I cannot say enough bad things about this train wreck. It is one of the few movies I've ever been tempted to walk out of. It was a bad premise to begin with, first pregnant male, but then they tried to make it a spoof. What were they spoofing all those real pregnant males??? This was the worst movie I have ever seen. If it had enough votes it would be on the IMDB bottom 100. If it was possible to give it a zero I would, and I would still feel I had given it too much credit.",Negative "I loved The Real Mc Coys (1957-1963) It is too bad that Lydia Reed has decided to be forgotten and not appear. She was excellent in the show. Of course Walter Brennan was great as well as Tony Martínez. I loved it when he called Amos Señor Grampa.I have purchased Season I on DVD and I cannot wait to buy Seasons 2-6.If only there would be more shows on television like this one, everything would be better. This show appeared briefly in the summer of 1999 but then disappeared. God bless all the departed members of the cast and please,Llydia Reed, make yourself known again to the public. You are loved and respected. The Real Mc Coys will live forever.",Positive "Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.

Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies.",Positive "Stewart is a Wyoming cattleman who dreams to make enough money to buy a small ranch in Utah ranch… His only real companion is his sidekick Ben Tatum, the great Walter Brennan… To accomplish that, they drive the cattle clear to Alaska and on to Dawson, in Canadian territory, where they sell them...

Along the way they meet the man who runs the gold-crazy town behind a dishonest lawman John McIntire... He attempts to steal them the herd... Later, in Dawson, McIntire and his gang reappear, this time interfering with Stewart's gold claim...

Captured by Mann's camera in the wonderful scenery of the Canadian Rockies, Stewart is a thoughtful loner forced into violence by his need to get rid of the treacherous actions of a corrupt entrepreneur robbing local miners of their claims…

In this entertaining, beautiful Western, Stewart has two leading ladies to struggle with: Ruth Roman, a bit too valuable to describe as a sexy woman resisting the worst vicissitudes of the territory and the more docile, the French Canadian girl Corinne Calvet who does create a nice portrait of a likable girl with the ability to form a judgment... In spontaneous manner, Stewart is lost between the ostentatious saloon owner and the wife-candidate...",Positive "I have to admit that this ""re-imagining"" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.

I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the ""re-making"" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.

Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.

Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.

It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.

For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)

And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)

Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.

Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.",Negative "Audiard made here a very interesting movie. It begins with the description of an almost-deaf young woman, in its working universe as a secretary; she is ignored, frustrated, rejected... Hiring an intern as an assistant appears to be a way for her to find someone in her life : but the guy is just coming out from jail. Their both being rejected by the society reunites them progressively. Characters'description is profund, goes into details...both start to help each other; for she can read on lips, which reveals itself to be very useful for him...She will progressively evolve, far from what she was at first.

It's beautifully filmed; the whole is very convincing, even if it turns into a film noir at the end. Gesture is in particular beautifully observed in Audiard's filming. Emmanuelle Devos should be nominated at the Best Actess Cesar Awards for her magistral play. Action towards the end of the film prevents it from being a simple ""etude de moeurs"". It's actually surprisingly entertaining : 8/10.",Positive "Poor Basil Rathbone, an egotistical composer who's lost his muse. He's been faking it for some time, buying his lyrics and his music from various sources. Trouble is that two of the sources (Bing Crosby music) and (Mary Martin words) happen to meet and fall in love. And then they discover what they've been doing. Complications ensue, but all is righted at the end.

Crosby and Martin sing terrifically. Mary had signed a Paramount contract and also at the same time doubled as a regular on Crosby's Kraft Music Hall Radio Show. For reasons I don't understand, movie audiences didn't take to her, so she went back to Broadway and did One Touch of Venus in 1944 and stayed there.

Basil Rathbone in one of the few times he played comedy does it very well. His ego is constantly being deflated by sidekick Oscar Levant and again I'm surprised they didn't do more films together.

As in most of Crosby's Paramount vehicles, no big production numbers, but I agree with the previous reviewer about the title tune being done as an impromptu jam session in a pawn shop. Good job by all.

A surprisingly original plot and great entertainment.",Positive "You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.

Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.

The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying ""Just kidding.""

But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.

It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.

Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.",Negative "When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.

The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.

To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.

OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.

Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male).",Negative "You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.

It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.

",Positive "Steven Seagal....how could you be a part of such an awful film? I rented this movie because your movies usually have been pretty clean. I have lost a lot of respect for you being in an awful movie such as this one. Very, very poor taste! I am embarrassed that I even rented this movie. Steven, if you keep acting in movies like this one, I believe that your career is over. My husband and I have enjoyed watching many of your movies because you always can ""get the bad guy"" with a few hand maneuvers and make it clean...and also the language is pretty clean in your movies...but this one is something else. I will think twice before I rent another movie of yours.",Negative "Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.

This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with … well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.

In short, Saki – a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' – rides into the town – basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town – corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion – on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending – and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.

Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.

The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.

Rather, it's a bad film.",Negative "LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT was the first film I saw in 2000 and I doubt I'll see a better one this year. This beautiful tragicomedy by Belgian filmmaker Benoît Mariage is set in the industrial wastelands of Wallonia. Benoît Poelvoorde plays a father who desperately wants his son to win a car (a Lada!) for him. To do this the son has to break the record opening doors. What the father actually wants his for his son to be someone, because he himself has never made it further as the reporter of local news for a newspaper ironically called L'Espoir (Hope). Of course nothing works out as planned. This film can best be compared to Aki Kaurismäki's DRIFTING CLOUDS, although it is more dramatic and the humour is darker. Just like in that film however the tone is more melancholic than depressing and the ending upbeat, without being unrealistically happy. The humour is absurd, without making the plot unbelievable, and Mariage finds stunning images in the bleak settings that never seem artificial. The best thing about LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT is the acting by Poelvoorde. This actor shot to fame with the also brilliant cult-classic C'EST ARRIVÉ PRÈS DE CHEZ VOUS in which he played the charismatic hitman Ben. Since then he only played two small roles in films that were not released in the Netherlands, because, as he said in an interview, he was not convinced of his own acting capabilities and all the roles he was offered were reprises of the Ben character. With his return to a leading role in LCA there should be no doubt anymore about his acting. He's simply brilliant as a man stupid and evil enough to put his family in misery, but smart enough to realize what he's done and be torn by remorse about it. A must see.",Positive "Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.",Positive "A new side to the story of Victoria and Albert is brought to life by director Jean-Marc Valle. Most people's cursory thoughts of Queen Victoria is that of woman who reigned for several decades and lived her life in mourning. Emily Blunt is more than capable in the title role as she gives audiences a different perspective. She portrays Victoria in her youth, ascension to the throne, and early years. Blunt's Victoria both fresh and restrained throughout the film. Her strongest scenes are with Albert (Rupert Friend) and Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). All the actors acquit themselves well including Miranda Richardson in what could of been a throw-away role.

Though this is not a story of dramatic arcs and histrionic ""acting"" moments, the story is still interesting enough to make it worth viewing. There are a few historical liberties that has been taken by the screen writing, the film tries to stay true to the relationship between Victoria and Albert and of the social and royal structure of the time period. The set design and costumes are outstanding.

This film will be most appreciated by those drawn to history, period dramas, and of Blunt and the other actors. Heartily recommend.

Grade: A",Positive "I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...",Negative "Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.",Negative "I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here.",Negative "This piece of crap, since I can't call it a movie, can be summed up by the following.

-Stereotypical black criminal with black midget partner get in trouble -Black Midget pretends to be a baby with a fully developed adult face, body hair and genitalia -Black midget is mistaken(somehow) by man and woman who happen to want a baby -Black midget than goes on to commit acts of physical and sexual violence, demean white people wherever he sees them, and commit more crimes -Happy Ending

Honestly, it could have been a good satire if it hadn't been directed so shallowly and had such talentless bastards star in it.",Negative "I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. ""Revolver"" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like ""The Usual Suspects"" or ""Memento"", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said ""Revolver"" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.",Positive "The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.",Negative "Let's begin with that theme song sung by Christopher Cross. The song is ""If you get caught between the moon and New York City."" It's a great theme and song even after all these years, it never gets tiring. It really is a great song about New York City as well. Anyway, the great Dudley Moore CBE stars as a spoiled drunken millionaire who is engaged to Jill Eikenberry's character in the film. Jill would later star on LA Law. Anyway, he is served by his wonderful British butler, Sir John Gielgud OM who won an Academy Award for his performance in the film as Best Supporting Actor. Arthur falls in love with Liza Minnelli's character who is perfect in this film besides her performance in her Oscar winning role in Cabaret. No, Liza doesn't get to sing. She plays a diner waitress. Anyway I love Geraldine Fitzgerald as the Bach matriarch of the family who decides the family's fortune. Anyway, she is fabulous and should have gotten an academy award nomination herself for Best Supporting Actress. Barney Martin best known as Jerry's dad on Seinfeld plays Liza's dad. He's great too. The movie was well-written, acted, and delivered to the audience who wanted more of it.",Positive "This movie is the only movie to feature a scene in which Michael Jackson wields a Tommy Gun. Plain and simple.

This movie rocks because it is freaking' hilarious! It may be creepy to see Jacko w/ little kids, but this movie also stars.......................................... wait for it,.....................

JOE PESCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think about it, Joe Pesci and Jacko with Tommy guns, throwing coins into jukeboxes from 20 feet away? Whats not to like? As stated before, THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",Positive "This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say ""horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)""? Don't get me started with the ""dead child"". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<",Negative "I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as ""good"" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron.",Positive "Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison.",Negative "Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.

How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.",Positive "This film is a wonderfully simplistic work. Enjoyable from start to end it is both sad yet uplifting at the same time. The performances from Miranda Otto (oh, how she deserves so much more recognition!)and George del Hoya are beautiful and yet almost painful to watch, as the two tortured souls come to understand each other. The supporting cast of workers at the Dead Letter Office are wonderful bit-parts in them selves, as is Alice's long-suffering boyfriend, who I couldn't help but feel slightly sorry for. There's one particular scene I could watch over and over (and I have!), it's such a shame that films like these don't get recognition, and therefore bring them futher into the public eye for more people to enjoy. I cried, I laughed and I sighed. I'd recommend this film to anyone.",Positive "Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon.",Positive "I rented this movie because I hoped it would be one the whole family would enjoy. Although the movie is family friendly, my family did not enjoy it because it gives a false view of God. If you obey God and follow Him, you are not guaranteed success. Your football team won't always win. You won't magically get better grades. Infertility isn't always cured. You won't always get a raise. Sometimes, you'll be stuck with the old car.

God does not exist to meet our every whim. Rather, we were created to glorify Him. Sometimes we glorify Him most when things seem to be going bad for us. To live is Christ; to die is gain.",Negative "...that seem to be fooling people into seeing qualities in this film that are just not there.

Near Dark covered the same territory but with much more class, and action.

why the script kept their 'big secret' so long was a total mystery to me - I guessed it at the breakfast scene at the start of the film. By the time it was revealed to the viewer it was just a case of 'big deal, tell me something I don't know.'

I found this to be pointless movie that may have challenged the genre conventions, unfortunately those conventions are that horror films are tense and packed with genuine sense of horror. This was woeful",Negative "Here's the kind of love story that I do enjoy watching. And mostly, it's for two reasons. One, it concentrates of young people, VERY young people. People who are still in their teens and are experiencing love for the first time, or at least think they are. All of us have been there in our lives and ""The Man in the Moon"" is a magnificent reflection upon our memories, maybe adding on a few more details and enhancing it further than any of us have experienced. The second reason is that is a love triangle. And I do believe that as teens, it's the most dramatic. And the story is so well developed that you believe the characters could really be in love, or are just so new to love that they just strongly believe they are and after a tragedy or so occurs, will believe it for the rest of their lives.

The cast of ""The Man in the Moon"" is full of great talented names. It stars Sam Waterston, who is truly a versatile actor, well capable of playing tough district attorneys as well as strict, yet caring and wise fathers as in this film. Also there is Tess Harper, Jason London, and a young, young Reese Witherspoon. You look at the young, talented actress as she is at age fourteen and you think that about ten years down the road, she's going to win the Academy Award. All members of the cast pull off great performances and with the dialogue of the compelling screenplay, they are enhanced into looking like real people in real situations. As if it all really happened. This the kind of movie that I would like to see come out more often. Love story or not. I would love to see films that make everything look real and is not phony or disbelievable in any way.",Positive "Unlike endemol USA's two other current game shows (Deal Or No Deal and 1 vs. 100), the pacing in this show is way too slow for what is happening on the screen.

DOND and 1 vs. 100 can get away with slow pacing because the games can change pace--or end--at any moment. There is risk involved in every action the player takes, the rewards are wildly variable, and it is difficult for the players to leave with a significant amount of money. Suspense is usually put to good use.

Show Me The Money, on the other hand, is just too slow-paced. When a question is revealed and it is obvious that the player knows the correct answer, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing exciting will happen in the next few minutes. It would greatly help the pace of this show to reveal the correct answer FIRST, and THEN have the player select a dancer, instead of Shat wasting time talking about what will happen if the player gets an answer wrong when we all know they're right. The random dancing is filler that actually feels like filler. Too much time is wasted while not enough is happening... and the fact that players cannot choose to quit the game early guarantees that there WILL be a lot of time wasted.

Oh, and I have NO interest in watching Shat shake his groove thang, especially right after I've eaten dinner.

I am a lifelong game show fan, but even I had a lot of trouble sitting through an hour of this. It either needs major changes or early retirement.",Negative "Times are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier ""World's lamest actor"" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: ""You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!""

Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.

However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible ""Mexican"" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.

The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details ""Ain't no mercy in Angel Town""

* out of 4-(Bad)",Negative "As others have commented, I checked this out after Siskel and Ebert listed this as one of their top 10 movies of the year. What a gift. I then went out to buy it, just so that I could loan it out.

Best quote? Dwight Yoakum stops his truck when he realizes that someone (Cage) is on top of his cab. When Cage peers down, he apologizes. ""I'm sorry if I scared you."" Yoakum thrusts his pistol in Cage's face with ""Does THIS look like I'm scared?"" Great bit of humor after an exciting (and temporary) escape.

There really was a sense of fun to this. The constant sighting of the ""Welcome to Red Rock"" sign elicits a groan and a smiling head shake. The music created a hunting, eerie quality to the film reminiscent of ""Twin Peaks"". Unlike ""Twin Peaks"", though, it doesn't spoil things by going too far into the outlandish, needing to ""top"" itself.

I admit watching the credits 15-20 times. You see, they had Yoakum's ""Thousand Miles from Nowhere"" (perfectly chosen) playing as a freight train curved around down to the desert floor . . with snow-capped mountains in the distance. This was incredible, fluid framing. Further, I've never seen a better unification of sight and sound on film. Also, it totally fit the story.",Positive "The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.",Negative "...then you'd better not watch this movie. They've completely ruined the premise of the show. In the movie the Duke boys are idiots, Daisy is trampy, Roscoe is sinister, Boss Hogg is capable, Uncle Jessie is a criminal...only Cooter and Flash are true to the original characters. At least Enos is kinda close.

At one point they open the doors to get into the General Lee -- nuff said.

The original show may not have been great TV, but it was entertaining and the characters made sense. This movie is like Dumb & Dumber meets the Simple Life.",Negative "This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.",Negative "What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?

This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it.

Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times.

Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity.

But there's more.

Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.

Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.",Positive "Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the ""Jeep"" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the ""Jeep""(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.",Negative "If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male",Negative "This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole ""Little Man"" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a ""Black Comedy"". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!",Negative "I do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of ""trying"" throughout the movie.

I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem ""put on"".

I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.",Negative "I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.

Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you!",Positive "I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing ""Return to Paradise,"" which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from ""Return to Paradise.""

Maybe I was expecting too much.

On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying.

I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tension

The best thing about this film is the ""tragic"" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.

3/10",Negative "Russian emigrant director in Hollywood in 1928 (William Powell) is casting his epic about the Russian revolution, and hires an old ex-general from the Czarist regime (Emil Jannings) to play the general of the film, and the two relive the drama and the memory of the woman they shared (Evelyn Brent), of 11 years before.

Try as I might, I feel it hard to warm to 'The Last Command' for all its virtues. 'The Docks of New York' was indubitably a great film, and 'Underworld' is a film I have always been craving to see, but 'The Last Command' is rather heavy-going. The premise is fascinating, but the treatment does really make the script come to life, except in the sequences set in Hollywood, depicting the breadline of employable extras and the machinations of a big movie production with state-of-the-art technology.

Emil Jannings is, predictably, a marvelous Russian general, distinguishing wonderfully between the traumatized and decrepit old ex-general, transfixed in his misery, and the vigorous, hearty officer of yore.

The ending is great and worth the wait, but in order to get there you must prepared to be slightly bored at times.",Positive "Orson Welles' ""The Lady From Shanghai"" does not have the brilliant screenplay of ""Citizen Kane,"" e.g., but Charles Lawton, Jr.'s cinematography, the unforgettable set pieces (such as the scene in the aquarium, the seagoing scene featuring a stunning, blonde-tressed Rita Hayworth singing ""Please Don't Love Me,"" and the truly amazing Hall of Mirrors climax), and the wonderful cast (Everett Sloane in his greatest performance, Welles in a beautifully under-played role, the afore-mentioned Miss Hayworth--Welles' wife at the time--at her most gorgeous) make for a very memorable filmgoing experience. The bizarre murder mystery plot is fun and compelling, not inscrutable at all. The viewer is surprised by the twists and turns, and Welles' closing line is an unheralded classic. ""The Lady From Shanghai"" gets four stars from this impartial arbiter.",Positive "I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.

Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.

There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement?

Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.

I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.",Negative "I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy?",Positive "...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in ""Ray"" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like ""Bait"" and ""Booty Call,"" I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch ""Bait,"" it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in ""Taxi Driver,"" it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow ""Green Mile"" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in ""The Green Mile,"" also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like ""The Replacement Killers"" and ""Training Day."" Even in ""Bait,"" he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.",Negative "This is an old fashioned, wonderfully fun children's movie with surely the most appealing novice witch ever. Unlike many modern stories which seem to revel in dark witchcraft, this is simply a magical tale of hocus pocus that is cute, light hearted, and charming.

The tale is set back in 1940 in the English village of Peppering Eye, where three Cockney children, Charlie, Carrie, & Paul Rollins, are being evacuated out of danger from World War II city air raids. They are mistakingly sent to live with Eglantine Price, who is studying by correspondence course to become an apprentice witch. Eglantine and the trio of children use a magic bed knob in order to travel to London on their flying bed. Here they encounter Emilius Browne, the fraudulent headmaster of Miss Price's witchcraft training correspondence school. Miss Price sets about working on spells designed to bring inanimate objects to life. Meanwhile, they must also deal with a shady character called the Bookman and his associate, Swinburne.

Angela Lansbury is of course marvelously endearing as the eccentric witch in training, Miss Price. David Tomlinson plays Mr. Browne, headmaster of the defunct witchcraft school, who has now turned street magician. This actor was previously cast as the children's father in the movie Mary Poppins. In fact, this film is a tale quite reminiscent of the earlier Mary Poppins, both wonderful fantasy stories for children. Perhaps this movie doesn't have quite such memorable music as Chim-Chim-Cheree, but it does boast some appealing little tunes. Some have been critical, but the movie features excellent special effects. All in all, the story is enchanting family entertainment. It's a pity if modern children are too sophisticated for this lovely & bewitching tale, which should appeal to the child in all of us.",Positive "This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.",Positive "After his classic film noir homage Chinatown Roman Polanski returned to the themes that had given him his greatest hits in the 60s with this creepy psychological horror which, like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, deals with the paranoia and claustrophobia generated by apartment living.

Claustrophobic environments are the ones which Polanski is best at creating, and this has to be the most suffocating and confined picture he ever created. The emphasis on side walls and distant vanishing points is greater than ever, and even in the small number of exterior scenes the sky is rarely glimpsed. But The Tenant is not just confined spatially, but also in the intensity with which it focuses on its protagonist. Trelkovsky, played by Polanski himself is not only in every scene, he is in virtually every shot. When he is not on screen more often than not the camera becomes Trelkovsky's point of view. And of course almost everywhere he looks he sees his own reflection staring back at him in a mirror.

I can't think of any film that is more about the internalisation and solitude of one character. Some psychological thrillers, like M or Peeping Tom, manipulate us into feeling sorry for the mentally ill protagonist. Others, like Psycho, attempt in-depth scientific analysis of his mental condition. The Tenant fits into neither of these categories – it simply immerses us completely inside Trelkovsky's experience without demanding we actually understand or appreciate what is going on inside his head. We feel his paranoia and obsession even though it is constantly revealed to us that they are irrational.

Polanski was also a master of the slowly unfolding horror film. Often in his horrors there is an ambiguity as to whether there is actually anything sinister going on, but they are among the most effective at frightening audiences. Why? Precisely because they unfold so slowly and invest so much time in painstakingly setting up situations that they immerse the viewer in paranoia. A much later Polanski horror, The Ninth Gate is a bit of a mess plot-wise but at least it still manages to achieve that creeping sense of dread.

This is a rare chance to see Polanski himself in a major role. His talent in front of the camera was as good as behind it, and he is absolutely perfect as the meek Trelkovsky. Another standout performance is that of the all-too-often overlooked Shelley Winters as the concierge. In actual fact it is rather a stellar cast, although many of the familiar faces look out of place in this strange, Gothic European movie. Also sadly many of the French actors in supporting roles are atrociously dubbed in the English language version.

The Tenant is more polished and less pretentious than Repulsion, but it lacks the suspense and the character that make Rosemary's Baby so engrossing and entertaining. The Tenant is good, with no major flaws, and Polanski was really on top form as a director, but it's not among his most gripping works.",Positive "This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The Footage is extraordinary, mesmerizing at times. It also received an Oscar for best photography, and deservedly so. I have many movies in my film collection and several more I've seen besides them, and not many of them are more beautifully or even equally as beautifully shot as this one.

It's unique and an overall great movie. The cast is terrific and do a great job in portraying their characters. We follow their destinies with devotion, and get very emotionally attached to them. Along the way, we also learn things about ourselves and our lives. I think much of this film for what it represent, and how it present it. I warmly recommend it",Positive "Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.",Negative "One measurement for the greatness of a movie is, 'if it came on t.v. right now, would you want to sit there and watch it again?' My answer for the Grand Canyon is as powerful a ""yes"" as it would be for nearly any movie I have ever seen. There are just so many powerful moments, such an intelligent and moving story, such incredible performances.

It perfectly captures the confusion and violence that were so rampant in the early nineties. But it also dramatically affirms the capacity of individuals to love, think and care. In a slight way, the movie was of its time. It partly portrays society as a balloon about to burst. Because the country was in a recession, and so void of leadership, this was true of that time. But the movie is also timeless. I think it could honestly stand up against any movie that has ever been made, and it is the most overlooked film of all time.",Positive "I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his ""Valley of the Dolls"". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....",Negative "Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt.",Positive "The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the ""I'm gonna get us outta here"" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the ""star"", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since ""The Cowboys"". Stop it.",Negative "Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.",Negative "Wow. Rarely have I felt the need to comment on movies lately, but this one especially is begging for a beatdown. Let's start at the beginning. First, writer-director Susan Montford puts Kim Basinger in the tired old victim role, complete with the requisite abusive husband and dull suburban existence. Let it be said right now that almost all content in this dull movie is completely hackneyed and trite. Montford's pathetic attempt at symbolism involving the Christmas tree with no star is laughable.

When She Goes Out for some Christmas wrapping paper one dark and ominous night, Della is furious that somebody double-parked their car on the busiest shopping night of the year. She decides to do something about it, so she leaves a nasty note on the car's windshield. The next fifteen minutes of the movie are devoted to Della walking around aimlessly in the shopping mall. When she finally gets to her car, the thugs confront her about the note, a cop is killed, and she runs, and they catch up to her, and she gets away, and they chase her some more, and on and on. Everything is completely predictable and uninvolving. The thugs are not scary or menacing at all, and they all get picked off one by one in all the usual ways.

This is one of those movies in which all the action depends on the characters being as stupid as you can imagine. Why the bad guys don't just kill her instead of waiting for her to hit them with a tire iron is beyond me. And once, just once, in a film like this, does the leader of the pack have to die last? What does it matter that they are all picked off one by one when they are all equally inept? Much of the movie simply consists of Lukas Haas running around in the woods screaming ""Della!!!"" And the inclusion of Joy Division on the soundtrack of this wretched film is insulting.

The part that really made me run for my computer keypad was when Della, exhausted and hurt, cries out to the heavens, ""Where are you, God?"" Where, indeed, was god when this movie was being made? I give it a 2 only because of competent cinematography and lighting, and it's not as bad as 'BTK Killer,' the ultimate marker for judging any terrible film. Cheers!",Negative "Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.

I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival.",Positive "This game is very addictive, I kept playing it for hours straight until late at night but also the fact that you can't save a game when you are in space contributed to this, at times I just HAD to play on in order not to loose any game data.

So yes, ""Freelancer"" is addictive but also quite flawed. Also for instance, something that extremely bothered me was that you couldn't skip any of the cut scene's with as a result that at times you had to watch the same few minute cut scene time after time. A great opportunity for me to multitask to check my e-mail or have a chat with my friends and more things like that, while I had to wait for the cut scene to be over.

The story starts of promising but the further you get the more ridiculous it all gets. Also the game also ends quite abrupt, at least it did so for me. It is quite obvious that they are hinting at a upcoming sequel. I don't know if a sequel is in the works at the moment but I am sure that most likely I will pick one up once it will be released.

The gameplay is very easy! Even for those who are not familiar with flight games. To put it boldly, every fool can play this game. Yes, some levels are quite hard and require lots of effort. It took me about 1-2 weeks for me to finish this game which might be a bit too short. But thank God for the multi-player option! It allows you to keep playing short missions, just like the single player game once you have completed it by the way.

Even though lot's of mission are the same, it just simply stays cool to be in the middle of the at times massive dogfights.

The graphics are good but just not anything revolutionary or anything.

Addictive game but beware of its flaws.

7/10",Positive "Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances.",Negative "The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be ""Something About Mary,"" but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies.",Negative "Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. ***",Positive "It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.

No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their ""proby"" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.

I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.

The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.

Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.

We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.

Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7.",Positive "I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets ""no respect."" I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.

In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)

This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.

2/10",Negative "This is one of the greatest love story movies I have ever seen. Yes, I can agree that some parts may seem dated, but this does not distract from the film. One should try to observe, criticize and enjoy any art form from the perspective of the time. Clearly by the ""Sex in the City"" standards, Charlie Chaplin was horribly boring. However, when judged from the prospective of 1925 America, he was fantastic. Likewise Sayonara is a breakthrough film in its look into a mixed-race love affair, American ""manifest destiny"" arrogance and prejudice, and the complexity of different cultures. It is a natural next step to such films as Gentleman's Agreement. Its purpose, however, was not just social commentary, rather, it is entertaining and enjoyable, with innumerable lines that one just doesn't forget.

However, even when taken only as a love story, it is terrific. Although, some attack Brando's accent, he is at his near best in nuance and characterization. Buttons and Umeki (who both won Oscars) and the rest of the supporting cast add much to the film.

Taka, the real star, does a fabulous job making you feel the passion she has for Brando, while being torn by her sense of obligation and loyalty. Her speech when she first meets and speaks with Brando is a classic and something rarely if ever matched in cinema. The dialog between Taka and Brando in her dressing room in Tokyo at the film's end is equally good. Of course, it doesn't have the mouth-sucking, spit-swapping and worse, that exemplifies love in today's movies, but that makes it all the better. It portrays true love and passion, and not just ""heat."" If this movie doesn't touch you, then you are just too young, too cynical or dead.",Positive "The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate.",Positive "Nowadays it is sort of a trend to look upon all shows from begin 90's as classics (people are so easily blinded by nostalgia these days), and while some of those shows were/are undoubtedly good, this one is just pure crap. I watched this show a lot back in those days since it got A LOT of reruns on TV back then, and even as a child I didn't like it. Even a 8-year old can see how much the people in Power Rangers are overacting, and how much the special-FX sucked even back then. When the show doesn't resort to the painfully bad 'fighting'-scenes, it plagues the viewer with this unnecessary soap-opera about a group of teens and they'r little social problems every now and then. I don't know about you, but I didn't give a rats ass about any of that at all, and its basically filler until they have to 'fight' some dude again in a very cliché alien-costume with fireworks or some toy-robot. You never feel 'involved' in some kind of way with this show, and the fact that most of the actors act like there really have no interest at all besides they'r wallet just enhances the lack of feeling.

There is really nothing memorable about this show, and its pretty surprising that it got so many spin-offs (Beetleborgs is a good example). All it is is just a quick way to make some money though. I challenge any 'fan' to tell me what exactly stands out in episodes that is supposed to be so good because I couldn't find anything that is even slightly appealing to children. My guess is that most 'fans' of Power Rangers will tell me that I ""just don't get it"" anyway, or something along that line. I really don't care though; this was crap back then and it still crap now.",Negative "When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.

Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.

My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of ""Hunh?"" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.

Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the ""innocence"" and ""clean-cut"" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.",Negative "This is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.",Negative "I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.

1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.

2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.

3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: ""The movie's finally over!"" It's pure joy.

4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.

5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)

(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...)

6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory.",Negative "Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.

The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of ""Dames at Sea,"" leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass.",Negative "I saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and don't know what kept me in my seat. I guess I just expected a film with Gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. The story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. There is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. The cutting ""style"" relies on jump cuts, mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and SURPRISE the leader is the ""victim"" of an executed killer. I don't see how Gere, a Buddhist, got involved in this violent, sexist trash.",Negative "Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.",Negative "This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.",Negative "I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think ""Kettle of Fish"" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.",Negative "Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.",Positive "As a 90 minute experience, it is not up to the standard of `Drive', as the actors clearly learnt their trade at the `Who Am I?' academy, while the action sequences are generally no better than those in the superb Mark Dacascos beat 'em-up. However, those who enjoyed `Drive', (and I thought it was wonderful!), will undoubtedly enjoy this too. You certainly won't rewind back to the start and watch it all again, but you will definitely flick back to some of the action scenes for a long time to come.

It is refreshing to see that the art of quality fight choreography is still being practiced, even if not in Hong Kong, and I would love to see what these guys could do with the budgets, time and respect afforded to the likes of Yuen Woo-ping and Corey Yuen Kuei. If you sit through the first half hour and aren't sent crazy by the atrocious dialogue then you are in for a treat. Bosch is magnificent, and can really bust a move with some magnificent acrobatics, kicks and simple acts of bravery.

If you are fortunate enough to be within 500 miles of a copy, then track it down and watch it. It's not Shakespeare. In fact, it's less articulate than Coolio in `China Strike Force', but you will be impressed with both the moves on display and the pain felt by the stunt team - (I'm pretty sure there's no safe way to land directly on your head, or be forced to head butt a wooden roof by a speeding car!?).

",Positive "The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous.

I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.",Negative "I watched this movie by chance, get curious by the trailer on TV. I like when I discover movies like this, little, tender stories about ordinary people. Even if the end is tragic, ""The Man in the Moon"" has some funny moments, especially in the first characterization of Dani, with her innocent and pure love affair with Court. It's really a beautiful, moving love story with 3 high points: the performance of Reese Witherspoon, who maintained her promises in the world of cinema, the beautiful cinematography by the ""Old Lion"" Freddie Francis and the fantastic score by James Newton Howard, which is really the soul of the movie. His themes (which deserved an Oscar nomination) are so intimate and lyric that it seems they had transformed the screenplay in music.",Positive "This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue...",Negative """Cinderella"" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.

Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.

My favorite thing about ""Cinderella"" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life.",Positive "Let's be honest. As a film school project, made without budget and ""real"" actors, this is a passably interesting film. As something to be released on DVD for an innocent viewer, it's a very poorly produced product. If I would be idly changing channels and happened to catch this film accidentally, it would probably arrest my eye and attention for a while. As a person who bought this DVD under the impression that I would be getting a proper cinematic product, i.e. a film, I feel deeply disappointed. It's a videotaped TV play, something along the line of old sixties serials, but without that certain charm. Aside from the leading man Mr Redfield (who also is the director), the other actors seem to be either chaps from the campus (a bit too old for that actually), or members of the director's household, who appear before the camera without any help from not only the acting couches, but also the make-up artist or hairdresser (a bonnet over outgrown permanent bangs or a top hat over mullet is a very long way from creating 1840s). It's all shot using a motionless mounted camera in a small, bare studio, sometimes using blue screen for outdoors backgrounds. Synthesizer generated uninspired score of lame ""period"" inspired romantic karaoke insults the viewers ears on more than one occasion. The film attempts to be ""dreamlike"", whereas in fact it's merely conceptionless collage of those shots that made it to the editing (and believe me, the standards weren't too high to start with). There are interesting dialogs every now and then, but overall it's pretty lame and two-dimensional production in more than one way with no flashes of genius from either the director or any members of the crew. That's how ""artsy"" films attempted to look in the 80s. Mr Redfield does a much better job as an actor than the director.",Negative "At the beginning of the film we watch May and Toots preparing for their trip to London for a visit to their grown children. One can see Toots is not in the best of health, but he goes along. When he dies suddenly, May's world, begins to spin out of control.

The film directed by Roger Michell, based on a screen play by Hanif Kureshi, is a study of how this mother figure comes to terms with her new status in life and her awakening into a world that she doesn't even know it existed until now.

May's life as a suburban wife was probably boring. Obviously her sexual life was next to nothing. We get to know she's had a short extra marital affair, then nothing at all. When May loses her husband she can't go back home, so instead, she stays behind minding her grandson at her daughter's home. It is in this setting that May begins lusting after young and hunky Darren, her daughter's occasional lover.

Darren awakes in May a passion she has not ever known. May responds by transforming herself in front of our eyes. May, who at the beginning of the film is dowdy, suddenly starts dressing up, becoming an interesting and attractive woman. She ends up falling heads over heels with this young man that keeps her sated with a passion she never felt before.

Having known a couple of cases similar to this story, it came as no surprise to me to watch May's reaction. Her own chance of a normal relationship with Bruce, a widower, ends up frustratingly for May, who realizes how great her sex is with Darren. The younger man, we figure, is only into this affair to satisfy himself and for a possibility of extorting money from May. Finally, the daughter, Helen discovers what Mum has been doing behind her back when she discovers the erotic paintings her mother has made.

The film is a triumph for the director. In Anne Reid, Mr. Michell has found an extraordinary actress who brings so much to the role of May. Also amazing is Daniel Craig. He knows how Darren will react to the situation. Anna Wilson Jones as Helen is also vital to the story as she is the one that has to confront the mother about what has been going on behind her back. Oliver Ford Davies plays a small part as Bruce the older man in Helen's class and is quite effective.

The film is rewarding for those that will see it with an open mind.

",Positive "Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see ""The Cat in the Hat"" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the ""calamity"" known as ""How the Grinch Stole Christmas"". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against ""The Cat in the Hat"", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.

For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where ""The Grinch"" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, ""The Cat"" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from ""Wayne's World"" to ""Austin Powers"". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like ""Elf"" and ""Brother Bear"" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.",Negative "Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural ""thriller"" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).

I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.

How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.

The alleged ""killer cut"" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.

1/10",Negative "I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people ""finding themselves"". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character (""Wendy"") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.",Negative "I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the ""barbarian brothers"". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the ""barbarian brothers"" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl!

Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue.

I definitely recommend this film.",Positive """Panic"" is kind of a crime comedy-drama with William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland and Neve Campbell in the leading roles. Alex (played by Macy) is a guy who kills people for living. But for the moment he's facing a depression and that's why he is seeing a therapist. That's where he meets Sarah (Neve Campbell) and he falls in love with her. He's also facing another problem: he wants to quit the family business (the killings), but he doesn't now how to tell this to his father.

What follows is the story of a guy during he's midlife-crisis, facing the regular problems: falling in love with a pretty young girl and everything that goes with that.

Pretty good acting performances by the cast. Macy is excellent as the depressed Alex. I had high expectations for this one and it was a good movie but he doesn't completely deliver. The story was rather flat and cliché..

7/10",Positive "Michelle Rodrigez was made for this movie, when I first saw her in Fast and the Furious. You could tell that she was a tough woman. With this movie, she has not only proven her acting, but shows no fear and is tough like she should be in this movie. She is more a bad girl and that's what I like about her. This movie is about a troubled girl, living the life as a tom boy and getting in constant trouble with school and family. As she gets interested in her brothers training to be a boxer, she decides to go after her love to fight and asks her brothers trainer to train her. Even though they don't think she has the potential, they get to be shown proven wrong.

I think this movie was a little slow at the ending, but was well done. It shows, that people can do anything even if they don't think you have the potential. I recommend it to be seen.",Positive "This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will.",Positive "Hunky Geordie Robson Green is Owen Springer, a young doctor who moves home to Manchester to be near his father. Along the way, he falls for Anna, a woman 20 years his senior, and who happens to be the wife of his new boss, Richard Crane. Despite warnings from his new colleagues, Owen proceeds to get Anna for himself, going as far as to sabotage Anna and the cheating Richard's marriage. This is a romantic drama with many humorous undertones and a quick wit. The actors are superb: Green of ""The Student Prince"" and ""Touching Evil"" smolders on-screen as the cunning, yet warm-hearted Owen; Annis of ""Dune"" fame is lively and proves a good match to Green; Kitchen, from ""To Play The King"" is the right menace as Richard, whose comic missteps and snobbery underline his masterful, building hatred for Owen. This is a perfect love triangle, and despite the foibles and fallacies of our three characters, you come away better for knowing and watching them.",Positive "I saw this with few expectations and absolutely loved it! Bend it like Beckham is a fairly typical coming-of-age movie about a fairly atypical girl. This is Parminder Nagra (""ER"")'s breakout role, playing Jess, a teenager in England who is caught between her traditional Indian family and her love of football (that's soccer to us North Americans). And even though she's actually much older than her character, she plays the role pitch-perfect.

This is a movie about friendship - specifically Jess's friendship with Jules (Keira Knightley), her teammate who is also going through family issues, especially with her mom, who wears purple nail polish and little bows on her shoes, and who wants Jules to be more feminine, wear lacy underwear and flirt with boys and is terrified that playing sports means her daughter is a lesbian. Jules and Jess both love playing the game and have issues trying to convince their families to let them go after their dreams. They also, unfortunately, both love the same man - Joe, their coach (played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). The love triangle causes some strain in their friendship.

In some spots, Bend It Like Beckham falls into clichés. In others, scenes drag on far too long, and this movie probably could have benefited from overall tighter editing.

But this was a refreshingly fun film about growing up, culture clash, and the love of football. It's about female empowerment, chasing your dreams, and supporting your friends. Funny, charming and fun, Bend It Like Beckham is the little film that could... and did.

Excellent. 8/10.",Positive "I have no idea what the other reviewer is talking about- this was a wonderful movie, and created a sense of the era that feels like time travel. The characters are truly young, Mary is a strong match for Byron, Claire is juvenile and a tad annoying, Polidori is a convincing beaten-down sycophant... all are beautiful, curious, and decadent... not the frightening wrecks they are in Gothic.

Gothic works as an independent piece of shock film, and I loved it for different reasons, but this works like a Merchant and Ivory film, and was from my readings the best capture of what the summer must have felt like. Romantic, yes, but completely rekindles my interest in the lives of Shelley and Byron every time I think about the film. One of my all-time favorites.",Positive "Pointless, humourless drivel.....meant to be a comedy; but not one laugh in the whole film. Gratuitous violence often with guns. What kind of warped mentality can either make or say this is a good film?! 1 out of 10.",Negative "This is the film in Antonioni's middle period that most critics dismiss quickly, as a 'flawed' look at 60s American youth culture/politics. For what it's worth, I found it more touching and memorable than his more acclaimed films like L'AVVENTURA, perhaps because he shows more emotion & empathy here than anywhere else. The story is simple, but it is used as a frame for Antonioni's brilliant observations of, and critique on American consumerist culture, student life, the counter-culture, and the whole anti-establishment, anti-war backlash that was so prominent then.

Even from a purely technical point of view, it is a remarkably crafted film; from the opening credits sequence to the bizarre desert 'love-in', to the use of billboards, and right down to that jaw-dropping, cathartic finale that used 17 camera set-ups (in it's own way, as powerful as the climax of The Wild Bunch). Also, Antonioni chose one hell of a leading lady with Daria Halperin, one of the most beautiful ever to grace the screen. There isn't much 'acting' involved, as this feels more like a docu-drama, and so the use of non- professionals as the lead couple works quite effectively within that context. And the soundtrack is not only filled with marvelous music, its use is impressive as well (I can't forget the start of the film, mostly due to the selection of music - by Pink Floyd - that grooms the visuals so well).

Contrary to popular opinion, this is quite an achievement in cinema, and one I would enthusiastically recommend to anyone with a taste or tolerance for the off- beat. Well worth seeking out, and one of those key films of the 60s that demands a DVD restoration/release.",Positive "Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.

Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6.",Positive "I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole ""romance"" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything.",Negative "As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.",Positive "Wow I really liked this movie, William H. Macy is great as the quiet hit-man Alex.

All the performances here are really good, the plot is interesting and entertaining.

Alex, a married hit-man (like his father)with a little son, is going through a middle age crisis and wants to quit the family business so he goes to the psychiatrist for help and in this place he meets the young free will spirit Sarah of whom he falls in love to. One day Alex doesn't know what to do when he gets a job to kill a person he knows.

I recommend you to watch it if you like mature interesting movies.

8 stars = very good",Positive "My school's drama club will be putting this show in the spring of 2002, and I can only hope we're as good as this! I watched this film recently as sort of ""research"" for my role (Rosie Alvarez), and I'd just like to say, Vanessa Williams is the coolest!

Wow! The casting for this movie was right-on (with one exception). Jason Alexander, oh my gawd, is there anything he can't do? He was the most wonderful Albert Peterson ever - I especially loved all of his funny facial expressions and dancing during ""Put on a Happy Face!"" He is so great! Vanessa Williams, as I said before, is the coolest. She was a beautiful Rosie, and her transition from secretary to seductress was totally believable. Tyne Daly was hilarious as Albert's obnoxious mother and George Wendt was superb as the annoyed Mr. McAfee (however I LOVED Paul Lynde's performance in the 1963 version!). Brigitta Dau cracked me up as Ursula Merkle; she really hammed it up! And Marc Kudisch was an awesome Conrad Birdie...""Suffer!""

There was only one casting that I didn't understand, and, as you'll see from previous comments, many other people didn't understand. Chynna Phillips as Kim McAfee - what was that? I mean she's really pretty and very talented, but...she looks a bit too old for the role. Eh, maybe I'm delusional.

Okay well anyways, I highly recommend this movie. It'll leave you smiling!

",Positive "Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.

Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie.

Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.

Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.

*1/2 out of ****",Negative "I really enjoyed this. I got it thinking it was going to be a documentary, but it revealed itself as a good piece of tongue in cheek fun.

I think this has been well done, pretty much an extended TV show into a film, but due to the characters or rather original actors willingness to have fun and be made fun off helps this work in a great old style Innocent way.

If you are a fan of the original TV series then i am sure you will enjoy this.

Q",Positive "Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond… He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy…

But there were vital differences… Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively… Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous… There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner…

""The Kennel Murder Case"" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947… The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery – exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling ""locked room murder,"" the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects…

Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type…

William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular ""The Thin Man"" at MGM…",Positive "This is a script that Ed Wood worked over 10 years on trying to get made. Aris Iliopulos finally got the chutzpah to film a script that Wood saved from his burning home at the expense of other, more transitory valuables.

This is a dialogue-free movie, that some may foolishly describe as silent. In fact, it is a quite noisy film, without the inane chatter of most flicks. In the hands of these filmmakers, the music and sound effects provide a rich audio experience that works better than almost any grist from the Hollywood script mill, particularly that stupid boat movie Billy Zane last was in ('Watch out!', 'Oh no!' - J. Cameron.... ick...) I'll take Zane's wonderfully communicative monosyllabic grunts in this film over empty dialogue any day.

Billy Zane heads a team of players who obviously really wanted to be in this film. Ricci is radiant as always, and the gods are shining when you can put Sandra Bernhard, Rick(y) Schroeder, Eartha Kitt and Andrew McCarthy's name on the same poster.

The design is perfect, the pyramid set exquisite, and Ron Perlman's beastly performance is simply wonderful. Overall, this is a chaotic, visceral masterpiece lovingly crafted by fans of Ed Wood Jr., auteur and cinenephile. A must see for anyone who really loves movies the way that the first rate Iliopulos and his cast obviously do. A film to make you wish you had made it yourself.",Positive "This ""film"" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.

Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as ""direction"", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary ""style"" prized by those who don't know how to direct).

This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).

Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.",Negative "The 1960's TV series Bewitched owes it's idea from this movie. This is the movie that Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak made right after they were cast together in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. This one is not as obsessive as that one but Novak is just as captivating.

This was Jack Lemmons 10th movie and he is good in support here as well as Ernie Kovacs. The movie has a lot of good things about it. Hermine Gingold is very good in this movie, almost as good in support here as she was in The Music Man. The cast is very solid.

This movie has a late 1950's New York City feel & a cat that is as hexing as any feline in any movie. It is well worth watching as it is a love story with all the emotion of any, & a little magic too boot.

It is not Vertigo but I think because it followed that movie, viewers then did not rate it as good as it deserved - sure am glad that William Asher saw it, so that the 1960's series got created. I am not so glad about what Will Ferrell did to it on the big screen, this movie is much better than that.",Positive "As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like ""he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages"" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy.",Negative "I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew.",Positive "Convoluted, infuriating and implausible, Fay Grim is hard to sit through but Parker Posey is really the only actress who could take this story and run with it. She's at once touching,funny, cunning. The supporting actors commit to it as well.

I wont even try to tell you the plot.. It involves characters from Hartley's Henry Fool and attempts a tale of international espionage.

The film works well if you continue along with it-understanding it is. in a sense, completely ridiculous. It becomes more and more ridiculous as you plod along. (I resisted the temptation to turn off the DVD twice).

Fay Grim requires an adventurous film-goer willing to tackle something that isn't cookie-cutter. In the end, it offers something that defies description.",Positive "I was so excited to see this film because I had always heard it was very scary.

What's interesting about it is that it is a Japanese film they decided to bring to America, but they actually filmed it IN japan with the original crew! I think this made the film... more Japanese (which is probably why it managed to be fairly successful unlike most Japan-to-America horror movie flops) but it also made it a bit inaccessible to American audiences. The difference in what scares the Japanese culture and what scares the American culture felt present throughout the film. This worked well in moments when they meant to capture the nervous fear of the main character: a frightened fish in a big, busy, unfamiliar, Tokyo pond.

The storyline was quite confusing as well. In typical Japanese fashion it is extremely complicated and confusing. The beginning of the movie is actually the middle of the story and from there we move constantly forwards and backwards until, at the end of the film, we see the ending and beginning of the whole story. This constant flipping through time was very much confusing for me. Also, I didn't think some things were explained so well and I had to ask my friend to explain them to me (she had already seen it, as well as the sequel which apparently reveals more of the story).

Overall, there IS plenty for American audiences to love, tons of freaky imagery and macabre details which a healthy splash of jump scenes.",Positive "Yep, you read that right, kids. Michael Bay should've studied this film before making either of his over hyped, overlong, overly pointless ""Transformers"" movies. ""Robot Jox"" is better than both of them and it probably cost less than the ""Transformers"" crew spent on Megan Fox's personal trainer.

Thankfully, this little robotic gem, initially known mainly for being the film that bankrupted Charles and Albert Band's Empire Pictures studio, seems to have developed a cult following over the years. I fondly remember watching it on VHS during its initial video release in the early 90s and though some of the Cold War-era politics/stereotypes were already out of date by that time (just the Bands' luck that Communism would fall while the film was sitting on a shelf waiting to be released, eh?), it's still a pretty damn cool little B-Movie. They really don't make'em like this anymore, or if they do, they go the Bay route and CGI things to unbearable proportions.

For those who are unfamiliar, here's the Robo-scoop: We're somewhere in the future and after a nuclear holocaust, large scale ""wars"" have been outlawed. Disputes between nations are now settled mano-a-mano (or perhaps that should be machine-o-machine-o) by one representative from each side battling each other in giant sized Shogun Warrior style robots. Whichever 'bot walks away from the fight wins for ""his"" side. Gary Graham (who would later go on to play Detective Sykes in the ""Alien Nation"" TV series), plays ""Achilles,"" the greatest Robot Jock in Marketplace (a.k.a. the good guys) history. Achilles has been undefeated in his previous nine Robot bouts (ten being the maximum number of battles before a ""Jock"" is retired) and at the beginning of the film he faces off against his counterpart from the ""Confederation"" (i.e. The Russkies!), the psychotic Alexander (who is the most over the top ""evil Russian"" stereotype bad guy since Dolph Lundgren's infamous turn as Ivan Drago in ""Rocky IV""). The match is called a draw when Alexander violates the rules with an illegal Robot Move at the last minute and ends up not only embarrassing Achilles, but killing a whole bunch of spectators in the bargain. A rematch is scheduled to complete the bout, but Achilles simply wants to bow out, hang up his helmet and move on with his life. Rather than violate the Spoiler Rules by revealing much more, I will simply say that there are a great deal of twists and turns, behind the scenes skullduggery, and other difficulties for Achilles and his fellow ""Jox"" before the two robotic titans clash finally once again in the finale.

I hope I'm not making this movie out to be some sort of masterpiece of science fiction, because it isn't. ""Robot Jox"" is just plain fun. I'll grant that it is a bit higher-concept than your average B-grade sci-fi movie, and though the budgetary constraints do occasionally make themselves known (especially in the scenes involving some painfully obvious green-screen trickery), it is still the best looking movie ever to come out of the Empire/Full Moon Pictures factory. The robot fight scenes are very well done using old school stop motion/model techniques, and the sets and costumes don't look half-assed in the slightest. Empire Pictures and director Stuart (""Re-Animator"") Gordon were definitely shooting for the stars with this picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out for them (or the studio) but at least we got one heckuva cool little movie out of the deal. Bottom line: if you want to be aurally and visually assaulted for 2+ hours, feel free to rent a ""Transformers"" movie. By the end you're likely to feel like you've spent all that time watching someone else play a video game. If you want to have a rock'em, sock'em robot good time, pick up Robot Jox instead.",Positive "A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie.",Positive "I really liked this Summerslam due to the look of the arena, the curtains and just the look overall was interesting to me for some reason. Anyways, this could have been one of the best Summerslam's ever if the WWF didn't have Lex Luger in the main event against Yokozuna, now for it's time it was ok to have a huge fat man vs a strong man but I'm glad times have changed. It was a terrible main event just like every match Luger is in is terrible. Other matches on the card were Razor Ramon vs Ted Dibiase, Steiner Brothers vs Heavenly Bodies, Shawn Michaels vs Curt Hening, this was the event where Shawn named his big monster of a body guard Diesel, IRS vs 1-2-3 Kid, Bret Hart first takes on Doink then takes on Jerry Lawler and stuff with the Harts and Lawler was always very interesting, then Ludvig Borga destroyed Marty Jannetty, Undertaker took on Giant Gonzalez in another terrible match, The Smoking Gunns and Tatanka took on Bam Bam Bigelow and the Headshrinkers, and Yokozuna defended the world title against Lex Luger this match was boring and it has a terrible ending. However it deserves 8/10",Positive "From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called "" The Good Earth."" It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. ****",Positive "Well first off I'd like to add that I myself is somewhat of a historian so what I look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. But this is however not the case here. Sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn't entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in his youth, he even worked for Jews before world war one. It was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the Jews. His upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate, Hitler as a child wasn't a disturbed little brat. He had a more or less normal upbringing. Nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is Hitler.

Robert Carlyle is a great actor but he doesn't really fit in the role as Hitler. Hitler wasn't as impossible and unstable as he is portrait-ed here. Under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom ""manipulated"" people through his charms. His unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war.

I'd like to see a film about Hitler's life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. I really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example Hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. It is much better to actually tell the story EXACTLY as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like! The ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. Because it seems as if they didn't even know what really happened. Hitler wasn't even shot in the revolutionary march in Munch, his shoulder was ripped out of its socket.

It gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.",Negative "Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the ""Cape Fear"" remake, a small role in ""Goldeneye"", ""Walking Tall""). And I even liked Baker in ""Mitchell"", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.

""Final Justice"" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the ""cowboy frontier justice"" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than ""Mitchell"". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.

That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to ""B"" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout!

This is a guy we are supposed to admire?

The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.

On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.

In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.",Negative "For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two.

And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people.",Negative "The fifth ""Black Emanuelle"" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).

Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in ""Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.

The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!!",Negative "This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.

But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.

Definitely recommended!",Positive "Many people know how it feels when a loved one is lost. The feelings of pain, grief and sorrow can be unbearable. However, sometimes it is the memories they leave behind that trigger the saddest emotions. This theme is superbly portrayed in the short film 'Tulip', directed by the award winning Australian actress, Rachel Griffths. Described as a movie 'as much about memories as it is about love', a string of sensitivity and sentimentality is expertly threaded into this triumphant 15 minute film.

'Tulip' is a beautifully wrought, touching and heart-warming story of a man's journey in coming to terms with the loss of his wife through the relationship he shares with a very special animal, 'Tulip'. The film opens with a rising dawn, the chirping of birds and a vast landscape, introducing the sense of rustic harmony present throughout the film. A soft music plays, marking the entrance of Ruth (Jean Bain). She wears a flowered dress and apron with a sun hat on her head. She gently pets Tulip, caressing her ears and patting her back. The furnishing of the house is impressive and the attention to detail is creditable (a vase of tulips can be seen on the bench), reflecting the peaceful rural community. Will (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) greets Ruth as she is spooning the milk from the bucket. They pour the milk and coffee together, a sign of companionship and teamwork. Not a word is said but it is obvious that their relationship is close and affectionate; they paint a perfect picture of happiness.

Sadly, happiness doesn't last forever. The tragic passing of Ruth affects Will deeply. An effective scene of fading cars highlights Will's isolation and vulnerability at the end of the day of the funeral. Soon he sinks into depression and becomes oblivious to his surroundings when everything seems hopeless and lost. At Will's moment of despair, Tulip becomes the symbol of Ruth, the genuine connection Will has with his late wife. It was through Tulip that Will learns to cope with the absence of Ruth and overcome the heartrending feelings of loneliness.

Each of the characters is realistically and solidly portrayed, especially the part of Will. Charles 'Bud' Tingwell brings the character to life through personal investment. The recent loss of his own wife (Audrey Tingwell) is effectively reflected in his acting. Every sag of his shoulder and every frown on his brow make the viewer empathize strongly with the character. The character of Ruth is wonderfully carried out by Jean Bain. Although Ruth does not say a single word throughout the movie, her sweet personality and loving relationship with Will are obvious. Lois Ramsey and Kati Edwards give delightful performances in supporting roles as the friendly Margaret and Mary. They also add a subtle humor to the bittersweet story.

An anecdote from Griffths' childhood, the story of loss and discovery is remarkably captured in 'Tulip'. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, this film will surely make you misty eyed, triumphant or feel like drinking a cup of milk.",Positive "I saw this on TV the other night… or rather I flicked over to another channel every so often to watch infomercials when I couldn't stand watching it any longer. It was bad. Really, really bad. Not ""so bad it's good"" just flat out bad. How did it get funded? Who thought this was a good idea? An actor friend of mine auditioned and was told he wasn't good enough to play a bad guy but I think what they meant was ""save yourself and runaway from this steaming pile of @#$%."" I bet the rest of the cast had been given the option. To be fair the acting was hard to judge because of the appalling fake American ascents. The shooting was dullllllllllll. The action was awkward and stilted. The dialog was inane. By far the saddest thing was ship. In real life the Interislander ferry is a shabby boat and on film it doesn't scrub up well. Instead of trying very unsuccessfully to make it look like a new crews liner with bits of tinsel wrapped around rusting polls, I kid you not, they could have change the script to explain or even celebrate the shabbiness. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Don't watch this movie, not even as a joke.",Negative "This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!",Negative "For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it.",Positive "My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.

I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to

If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE

MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10

RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!",Negative Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a solid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis.,Positive "Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended.",Positive "As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.

Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.

There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.

The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.

The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.

How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.",Negative "Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.

All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.

The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.

I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.",Negative "I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.

It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say ""raccoon eyes?""

I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting.",Negative "I find it rather useless to comment on this ""movie"" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...

Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian ""movie"" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called ""Romanian reality"" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).

Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this ""movie"" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.

On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : ""How NOT to make a movie.""",Negative "This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but ""1930s"" American) make it difficult.

Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called ""Everytown"". It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.

The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.

Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.

If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period.",Positive "

I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.

**spoiler**

Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying ""I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!"" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.",Negative "I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico ""Ratso"" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.

I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says ""Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense ""John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!"" What I like is the delivery in that scene.

I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.

In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended.",Positive "I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did ""Revenge of the Nerds"" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after ""Return of the Jedi"" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a ""Nerd"" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time.",Negative "Otto Preminger's Dana Andrews cycle of films noirs are among the (largely) unsung jewels of the genre. Because they lack paranoia, misogyny or hysteria, they may have seemed out of place at the time, but the clear-eyed imagery, the complex play with identity, masculinity and representation, the subversion of traditional psychological tenets, the austere, geometrical style all seem startlingly modern today, and very similar to Melville. The lucid ironies of this film are so loaded, brutal and ironic that the 'happy' ending is one of the cruellest in Hollywood history. Brilliant on the level of entertaining thriller as well, tense, and packed with double-edged dialogue.",Positive "I might not have been the biggest Blair Witch fan but nonetheless appreciated that effort, so I was looking forward to Altered, especially after reading the superlatives thrown around in various IMDb comments. ""Unique"", ""intelligent"", ""A future cult classic"" and so on... you gotta wonder where people come up with that stuff to describe such a poor effort.

Because alas, Altered is a poor, weak movie that fails to engage in any and every respect. The silliness is not funny. The horror and gore is not scary. And whatever ""thinking"" aspect some poor fellows saw in this movie were due to severe delusions because there's certainly nothing profound or smart about this mess.

OK, so we know nothing stands out. Is it at least bearable? Is the experience worthwhile in any way? Unfortunately, no. For starters, get very poor acting. It's not a stretch to say most B-movies these days feature better acting. The plot? Boring and messy. Dialogs? Many amateurs actually do better.

It's really the direction that puzzles. I did not expect major improvements over Blair Witch but at least small steps forward. Instead, our director seems to have worsen over time, completely oblivious to previous experiences.

If there is a major flaw in Altered, it's the main set. A major part of the plot takes place in a single location, where the main characters are confined but Sánchez has failed to give the place any personality whatsoever. Considering that in Blair Witch, the forest plays a major part and is as much a character (an antagonist, if you will) as the three students, you would think the director would realize the same thing was needed here. But no... this place has no personality whatsoever thanks to sloppy direction and no attention to details.

There's nothing salvageable here. Die hard fans of ""Blair Witch"" are better off following Daniel Myrick. Although his output is far from being golden, it shows better structure than Sánchez and some lessons from Blair Witch are applied (unfortunately, in weak stories but still).",Negative "The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.

Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.

The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded.",Positive "so yes it is quite nostalgic watching the 1st episode because this is the one episode i definitely remembered. i enjoy watching the first season and yes compared to the action packed shows we have now this show seems lame. but frankly i like the ""less violent"" part of the show and the story line has more substance than the new ones now. I thought it interesting that Belisario's Airwolf and JAG have similar theme - the lead actor (Hawke and Harm) both are looking for an MIA relative (brother, father). wonder if Robert Belisario's personal life mimics these 2 shows' theme.

Question - does anyone have pictures of Hawke's cabin. I love that cabin (kinda like a dream cabin of mine) and that is one of the scenes i remember about Airwolf.",Positive "Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of ""innocence"" and/or ""beauty"". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.

The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The ""story"" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.

Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.

7/10",Positive "This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the ""enlightened"" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.",Positive "I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE WITCHES' MOUNTAIN (El Monte de las brujas)is something like the 17th movie in the set.

The movie had nothing to it to hold my attention at all. The plot was incoherent. The dialog seemed improvised. The acting was poor. The characters were unsympathetic.

The best scene is the beginning, with an exasperated woman that is driven to burning her seemingly bratty daughter. However, the only connection this scene has to the rest of the movie, is the lead character, Mario, who has the most stupendous mustache ever. But, that's it.

The film was not effective on any level. The music was too intrusive. The lighting was very dark, so that some scenes are almost completely black. It really is barely watchable -- what more can I say?",Negative "If you are the sort of person looking for a realistic film or one with a strong and believable plot, then this film is NOT for you. Nope--you'll hate it. However, for those who like sweet, slightly screwball comedies, then you'll have a nice time watching this slight film.

Tony Randall works for the IRS and he investigates a very nice farmer who never realized he needed to file an income tax return. However hard he tries to convince them of the seriousness of his visit, everyone in the family is thrilled to have company. They dote on him and treat him like one of the family,...and have plans on getting him hitched to their daughter, Debbie Reynolds. That's really about all the plot there is. But the film gets high marks for a fun script and decent acting. A really nice little curio from the late 1950s.",Positive "Being a transplanted New Yorker, I might be more critical than most in watching City Hall. But I have to say that before even getting to the story itself I was captivated by the location shooting and the political atmosphere of New York City that Director Harold Becker created.

For example there's a reference to Woerner's Restaurant in Brooklyn where political boss Frank Anselmo likes to eat. There is or was a Woerner's Restaurant on Remsen Street in downtown Brooklyn when I lived in New York back in 1996. It was in fact particularly favored by political people in the Borough though they did have a couple of other hangouts.

No surprise because the script was co-authored by Nicholas Pileggi who still writes both political and organized crime stories. He knows the atmosphere quite well and he sure knows how those two worlds cross as they do in this film.

A detective played by Nestor Serrano goes for an unofficial meeting with a relative of mob boss Anthony Franciosa and things erupt and three people wind up dead, including an innocent 6 year old boy whose father was walking him to school. The story mushrooms and at the end it's reached inside City Hall itself.

Al Pacino plays Mayor John Pappas and John Cusack is his Deputy Mayor a transplanted Louisianan, a state which has a tradition of genteel corruption itself. He's the outsider here and in trying to do damage control, Cusack finds more than he bargained for,

Danny Aiello plays Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo and for those of you not from New York, his character is based on the late Borough President of Queens Donald Manes who was also brought down by scandal. He's very much the kind of Brooklyn politician I knew back in the day whose friendship with organized crime and favors done for them, do Aiello in.

City Hall was the farewell performance on film for Anthony Franciosa, one of the most underrated and under-appreciated talents ever on the screen. No one watches anyone else whenever he's on.

Al Pacino's best moment is when at the funeral of the young child killed, he takes over the proceedings and turns it into a political triumph for himself. His is a complex part, he's a decent enough man, but one caught up in the corruption it takes to rise in a place like New York.

For those who want to know about political life in the Big Apple, City Hall is highly recommended.",Positive Powers Boothe turns in a stellar performance as 1970's cult figure Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple. Jones physical likeness to Jones is uncanny and the story is acted out chillingly. The movie keeps you riveted and is a must see for anyone. check it out.,Positive "The premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.

We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.

Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...",Negative "No matter how you look at this movie, it is just awful.

If you view it as a horror, then it is an unscary movie with the monsters being hand puppets.

If you look at it as a comedy, then you will notice most of the humor falls flat and is just lame.

If it is a romance you will wonder why a guy would stay with such a B**ch!

If you look at it as an action you can't really pull for the whiny hero.

As you can see this movie just fails to deliver anything remotely entertaining. As mentioned the monsters are obvious puppets and this film was another attempt at a Gremlins type movie. This however has the worst looking monsters of that genre. Critters looked pretty good, so did the Ghoulies, heck even the puppets from the Munchies looked better than these. The characters in this film are thouroughly unlikable. The hero is a whiney security guard, his girlfriend is always complaining, they have a tramp friend who has a jerk military boyfriend, and another friend who is a spaz. At one point in the movie the hero and the military guy fight with rakes...this movie is just utterly stupid. I like the scene when they are in the dreaded club scum (which is obviously not a club, but more likely a diner) and the hero tells the waitress that none of them are 21. Give me a break, I am 25 and I look younger than any of them.",Negative "If you want a fun romp with loads of subtle humor, then you will enjoy this flick.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy this one. Take it for what it is: a vehicle for Dennis Hopper to mess with your head and make you laugh. It ain't Shakespeare, but it is well done. Ericka Eleniak is absolutely beautiful and holds her own in this one - Better than any episode of Baywatch - and shows a knack for subtle humor. Too bad she hasn't had many opportunities to expand on that.

Tom Berenger fits his role of ""real Navy"" perfectly and William McNamara does a solid job as a hustler.

Throw in a walk-on by Hopper in the middle of the chase for ""the Cherry on this Sundae"" and you've got a movie that kept my attention and kept me laughing. I bought this one as soon as it was available.

Brain-candy.",Positive "A wonderfully quirky film with enough twists for a sack of pretzels. Parker Posey plays Fay Grim as a sexy, vulnerable, loving mother who may or may not be what she seems. The story is very tongue in cheek, and the dialog skillfully understated. Hints of humor and intrigue, neither of which overpower the characterization Posey pulls off so well. The supporting cast is stellar. The downside? This film needs your full attention, almost to the point of stopping the film and taking notes. Posey has more sex appeal in her lifting of an eyebrow than most actresses have in their entire body. She's worth your time, even if you don't understand the denouement.",Positive "I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with ""Einstein"" playing ""Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star"" on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is ""only a grease monkey"" is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.

I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.

I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy!",Positive "Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.",Negative "Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.

From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he ""lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen.""

The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Buñuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.

The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his ""lying the truth."" The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience.",Positive "I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful.

The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.",Negative "Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.

Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film ""The Long Goodbye."" ""The Gingerbread Man"" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.

Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.

Grade: B",Positive "Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.

""Elvira, Mistress of the Dark"" starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.

Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.

The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her ""endowments"" and sexiness as a joke (""And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads""). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course).",Positive "I think Micheal Ironsides acting career must be over, if he has to star in this sort of low budge crap. Surely he could do better than waste his time in this rubbish.

This movie could be far better, if it had a good budget, but it shows repeatedly through-out the movie. There is one scene at a outpost, which looks like, its outside the front of a railway station, and i bet it was.

There is one scene which made give this movie a 3, and it shows the space craft landing and taking off over a lake, surrounded by forests. This was well done, but the rest of the movie, forget it.

There is another scene, which looks like a engineering plant, which i bet it, and does not look like a space outpost as the character say it is.

This movie is stupid, has a serious low budget, makes no sense and God Help Micheal Ironsides.",Negative "I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky.

For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility.

- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher.

- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target.

- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert.

- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping.

- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there.

- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?

There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.

Many of the ""surprises"" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.

Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?

If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.",Negative "Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.",Negative Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies,Negative "To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in ""Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4""). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!).",Negative "Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.

Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.",Positive "Erich Rohmer's ""L'Anglaise et le duc"" makes a perfect companion piece to Peter Watkins' ""La Commune (Paris 1871)."" Both films -screened at this year's Toronto International Film Festival- ironically illustrate how history is shaped to by the tellers of the tale. Ironic, given the tragic events that were taking place in the U.S. during the festival.

Set in Paris during the French Revolution, the movie, based on Grace Elliott's (Lucy Russell) ""Memoirs,"" is a first-hand account of how she survived those heady but dangerous days. She also details her relationship with The Duke of Orleans (played by Jean-Claude Dreyfus), who, in contrast to herself, is a supporter of the Revolution.

True to form, you don't know whose side of history Rohmer is going to come down on. One of the earliest of the French ""New Wave"" filmmakers, Rohmer has often been criticized for being too conservative. After all, in the midst of the rebelling-youth-Viet-Nam days of the late 60s and 70s, he was filming romantic little confections like ""Claire's Knee."" But don't sell the old boy short, folks, he's always been a student of human nature, not an ideologue, and ""L'Anglaise et le duc"" continues to bear this out.

Rohmer's characters are never the ""bad guys"" nor the ""good guys'; they are first and foremost human beings who are capable of exhibiting a full range of human potentialities -and limitations. That's why his movies are always provocative, and this film is no exception.

Now for the technological nuts and bolts.

Rohmer, though making his way into his 80s, is still on the cutting-edge of cinematic innovation. The look of ""L'Anglaise"" is like something you've never seen before. You guessed it, the old guy -like several of the festival's directors this year- has gone digital.

All of the movie's exterior scenes look as though they are taking place in their original 1780s Parisian settings. As a matter of fact, you may get so distracted from marveling at the authenticity of the film's look you may have to go back for a second screening to catch the subtleties of the film's psychological -and yes, I'll say it- political insights.

Toronto features some of the world's edgiest young filmmakers this year, as well as some of the world's oldest. And the old masters are standing there on cinema's cutting-edges right alongside the young ones.

Long live youth. Long live old age. And long live Erich Rohmer.

",Positive "Whew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.

Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.

Supposedly based on a book called ""The Terrible Game,"" which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.

Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.",Negative "When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.

Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern.",Negative "An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.",Negative "This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of ""Maybe they did it right this time"". Nope - not even close.

Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a ""Raptor"" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.

How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.

How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.

Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.",Negative "Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...

'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!

Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.

But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.

Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking ""Oh my god this is so lame..."" and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.

And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.

The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.

The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.

In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.

Am I starting to sound creepy?

Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking ""Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!""",Positive "I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!!",Positive "San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking ""oh, I've been there,"" you will be thinking ""how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?"" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not ""groovy"" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better!

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.",Negative "Enjoyable in spite of Leslie Howard's performance. Mr. Howard plays Philip as a flat, uninteresting character. One is supposed to feel sorry for this man; however, I find myself cheering Bette Davis' Mildred. Ms. Davis gives one her finest performances (she received an Academy Award nomination). Thanks to her performance she brings this rather dull movie to life. **Be sure not to miss when Mildred tells Philip exactly how she feels about him.",Positive "Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool ""molten rocks"" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole ""trip to the Moon"" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).

Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking?

And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...

Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.

(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl).",Negative "If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story

Rapa Nui

""Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision"" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).

I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.

If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:

Better Luck Tomorrow

Mulan",Negative "Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.",Negative "I am the parent of a special needs child and I enjoyed the the movie very much! It was loving, warm and fun. I learned a long time ago to see the humor in things. I especially thought it was sweet how all the other characters worried about Frankie and who would take care of him after his grandmother died. I attended a focus screening of the film with other parents and siblings of special needs children before the film was edited. Everyone enjoyed the film and it actually inspired wonderful discussions. We talked about how our kids make us laugh and we also talked about how we worry about them. The screenwriter talked about how she work with autistic children and other special needs children as a volunteer for several years. She based the character on a real person. Our family is blessed with a sense of humor that has gotten us through some very stressful times. I give the movie two thumbs up!!!",Positive "You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.

Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some ""modern findings"" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.

The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.

The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.

My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne.",Negative "I was 5 years old when I saw this musical movie while on vacation with my family in St. Thomas in 1977 and immediately fell in love with it. 27 years later, it is still an original inspiration for achieveing my goals that I have set to accomplish since that time!

This tragic story of a hard-core ""behind the scenes"" of the entertainment industry during the late 50's, ""Sparkle"" successfully portrays the struggle of three young sisters looking for their place in the sun. This story could simply become the biographical story of many young aspiring artists about what could materialize when things seem to happen too fast and role models are not available to lend a helping hand.

The phenomenal music written and composed by Aretha Franklin and Curtis Mayfield, the soundtrack carries the plot with every song. From being subjected to situations that almost leave no choice for strong long-term decision-making, to making the ultimate sacrifice in order to get ahead, all three young girls, Sparkle, Sister, and Delores, represent the different routes that one could take when you set out to achieve your ideal opportunity as your contribution to society.

This movie could have possibly spawned the ideas of creating ""Dreamgirls"" on Broadway, and Mariah Carey's ""Glitter,"" 25 years later. As an original audience member of both productions, I have seen a lot of similarities in both stories to ""Sparkle,"" as well as in ""Saturday Night Fever,"" ""Fame,"" ""Flashdance,"" and the off-Broadway smash hit ""Mama, I Want To Sing.""",Positive "There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

",Negative "Watching this several times as a child was quite the experience 15 years ago, and now that I've found it again it still has a film experience like few others. If risky, it's a great display of morals and life lessons recommended for family viewing with young kids. While it still holds up as an adult, I was fortunate to have learned from it many times over years ago. Trying to find it today is hard enough . . . but believe me it is well worth it no matter what the age. Anime fans especially will find this a great entry to Masami Hata's filmography. With impressive art work and unique designs, ""Chirin No Suzu"" represents a worthwhile experience. While some of the lyrical songs are not so hot when recorded in English, the musical score is nevertheless captivating. But even the voice acting is far better than much released today. Unfortunately is went out of print in the mid-1980s from RCA Columbia Home Video, and has not received any new format release to my knowledge, at least in the US. Look hard for it and you will be quite satisfied! It's an artful, intense, enjoyable, and important landmark in Japanese animation.",Positive "Hello again, I have to comment on this wonderful, exciting, and believable tale of romance and intrigue. The music in wonderful and memorable. Very good colorful movie. Another movie I liked as well later on was High Society with Bing Crosby. Wonderful music. Thanks for listening, Florence Forrester-Stockton, Reno, Nevada",Positive "I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!

I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.

I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.

This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.

The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.

1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!",Negative "Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.",Positive "Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.

As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.

Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.

The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie.

In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.

The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project.

Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.

The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10.



",Negative "This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.",Positive "Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!",Negative "I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.

Enjoy!!!!",Positive "Robert Culp (they call his character ""doctor""...I think he's a vet or something) and family move to an affluent, low-tax, zero-law-enforcement suburb. Lantern-jawed Culp and his dog are nearly killed when some local idiot neighbor kids get drunk and ""go cruising"" through his front yard at 60mph. He presses charges, which arouses the kids' ire, and suddenly him and his family are the victims of a violent and disturbing prank campaign.

Marilyn Manson, er, Marlyn Mason rather, plays his fretful, boiled-celery wife, who urges him not to use violence against his sneering nemeses, and who really just wants to move somewhere with decent public services. But The System is getting Culp nowhere, and he's not about to leave his house because of some punk kids and their crazy rock and roll music. And we all know what movie people do when The System fails...(but this is based on a true story, which makes it even better).

It should be noted that while the villainous hooligans do have convenient '70s funk-o-matic ""teenage"" theme music that warns us when they're up to no good, this film actually ends up treating the age brackets even-handedly (really!). It doesn't make a big generational thing out of it. Kudos for that.

Anyway, if you like dogs (or at least believe in protecting their civil rights, like me), and you like justice, and you like fire, and you like justice for dogs by way of fire, and you think people who skitter nervously out of troubled communities are ""too damn soft,"" then this flick's ethos is up your alley. No, it's not really ""good,"" at least not in any widely recognized sense of the word. There's nothing subtle or understated or clever about it, it's just sort of a feature-length PSA for vigilantism. It does, however, capture the feeling of some memorable scenes in other, beloved works. Remember in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns when Batman leads the Mutants on horseback to reclaim Gotham City? Remember that scene in A Christmas Story where the kid pounds the bully's face in? Remember how cool that was? Or do you just really hate being looked at funny by your neighbors? Yeah, mon.

Unfortunately, this was a 1973 made-for-TV movie that I just happened to catch at 4am on my local WB affiliate, and it's probably not destined for DVD release. But after being inspired by this film, do you think I'm gonna just sit here and take it!?!",Positive "First of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.

During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!

Then came United...

*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!

But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!

All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!

Rating: 1/6",Negative "It is said that David Lynch's films and shorts won't appeal to everyone. Neither will Dumbland, maybe more than ever. I have a feeling that Dumbland, as people come across it, will be a true mark of 'I get it' or 'what the hell'. It's not surrealism exactly, but absurd to the point of no return. It's also very, very, very stupid. But in this stupidity can be a sort of ironic intelligence to it, that the maker knows so well how childish and repugnant this is, and this self-consciousness is a plus, not a detraction.

It's just a bunch of crudely drawn shorts- the kind that might not even make it on Hertzfeldt and Judge's Animation show (which, I might add, Lynch here has a lot in common with both directors in their work- centered on a lummox with an IQ of 20 who has a constantly quivering-with-fear wife, and a child who looks like a cross between the gingerbread man and/or an alien. The episodes include little situations like a faulty treadmill, a salesman who can recite the Gettysburg address, watching over a sick brother in law, ant hallucinations, and just wallowing on the couch with noise all around. All the while, Lynch is still experimenting, as he was constantly for better or worse during the period of five years he made on and off Inland Empire.

For one thing, he's going back to the roots of his very first short, Six Figures Getting Sick Six Times, in the usage of repetition as a means to an end. This sometimes works excruciatingly well, and sometimes not. Sometimes, like with the episode with the sitting around the house doing nothing as teeth are bleeding and a fly buzzes around, the absurdism sort of waxes and wanes without much of a good effect. And even an episode like with the guy's friend coming over is funny more-so for the Beavis & Butt-head comparison (both laugh like idiots, and are equally engrossed by killing things like fish and sheep). What ends up working is how Lynch shows up front delirious abstractions, in the crudest ways imaginable, and excessive violence.

In what comes closest to surrealism in ""ants"", the guy mistakenly sprays bug-spray (just called ""Kill"", one of Lynch's very cheap but fun pokes at societal conventions) on himself, and envisions ants in a musical chorus line, solos included. And one of the most harrowingly funny things I've ever seen from the filmmaker is ""get the stick"", where we just see the guy, cheered on by his son, getting a stick lodged in his mouth. Soon the neck breaks, eyes pop out, and once said stick is removed he doesn't watch out for traffic waddling like a manhole cover. Other moments pop up like this in unexpected crevices, and it's drawn as if on cheap paper with an impetus to shock with foul-mouthed language (mostly from the man, as well as from the 'grandmother', who in one of Lynch's voices for the characters is the deepest of all), and a shaky quality that's reminiscent of the cream of the crop from (early) Hertzfeldt.

All the same I'm still not sure if Dumbland is something I would put into someone's hands if they haven't seen much of Lynch yet let alone anything by him. There are some little points on society made via complete exaggerations that may or may not be in Lynch's mind closer than we usually think to those in real life. However in general there's not a whole lot that should be read into it, which is why I'd say more than half who see it will hate it with a passion. Those who dig the bottom-less pits of animated comedy, be prepared have a blast.",Positive "The One and only was a great film. I had just finished viewing it on EncoreW on DirecTV. I am an independent professional wrestler, and I thought this was a good portray of what life is like as a professional wrestler. Now this film was made 4 years before I was born, but I don't think the rigors of professional wrestling traveling has changed all that much. Sad, funny, and all around GREAT!!! **** 10+",Positive "Any film that deals with bigotry in a positive manner is a film that should still be seen by current audiences as the message and moral of the story will always be relevant as long as we have a world full of bigotry.

Aside from that, the film is really an old-fashioned love story..boy meets girl..boys loses girl...boy gets girl back....

The weakest role goes to the late Kent Smith as Lt. General Webster(Riccardo Montalban is a close second)...my question would be how did he ever get to be a 3-star general...the character is such a wimp in the presence of his wife and military subordinates, it's a wonder they show him any respect at all.

Brando's southern accent is a little overdone, and some scenes have a few holes but overall, I enjoy the film every time I see it.

Red Buttons is great...I always love seeing comedians in dramatic roles...as in Button's case, often a comedian can better portray the tragedy of a person than a more traditional dramatic actor.",Positive "John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.

My Grade: D+",Negative "I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. ""The Perfect Word"" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. ""Fifi's Folly"" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. ""Broken Wing"" (or ""Broken Wind"" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul.",Negative "I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.

One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.

Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.

Yes, I know the ""original"" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.

Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.

Well, just a quick list anyway :-)",Positive "This is about the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie does match the quality of such movies as ""THEY"" & ""Cabin Fever"", but even those had name actors where this one fell short. The ""eye candy"" of this movie looked to be a 50 woman with a bad face lift. (just an example of the quality). I would have rated this movie in the negative if possible. Ladies I have to tell you that the men were not bad to look at, but not much either. If you were planning on going to see this movie I would strongly recommend saving your money.",Negative "The movie is a bit ""thin"" after reading the book, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and Nick Nolte is really ""vonneguty"". He makes great job expressing the feelings from the book to the film. Not many films engage the feeling of the book as well as Mother Night does.",Positive "Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.",Negative "A series of random, seemingly insignificant thefts at her sister's boarding house has Miss Lemon quite agitated. A ring, light bulbs, a rucksack, a lighter, a stethoscope, a shoe – there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it. Miss Lemon asks her employer, the great Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, to look into the matter. But what Poirot sees is something far more sinister than Miss Lemon could have imagined. And Poirot's fears are confirmed when one of the students living in the boarding house if found murdered. It's up to Poirot to bring a killer to justice.

Hickory Dickory Dock is a solid, but not spectacular, entry in the long running Poirot series. I appreciate how faithful the script is to Agatha Christie's original story. I realize that certain liberties had to be taken, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. The major points of the mystery are all there – the petty thefts, the boarding house, the students, the ripped rucksack, and, of course, Poirot's ability to see something sinister going on before it actually happens. With a few exceptions, the cast of students is almost as I pictured them. Damian Lewis and Jessica Lloyd standout among the group. As mush as I always enjoy David Suchet's Poirot, I get a real kick out of the episodes with Phillip Jackson's Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon. This episode is a real treat as Miss Lemon gets more screen time than usual. Finally, I enjoyed the use of the ever present mouse as an observer of the activities in the hostel. It's a fun little play on the Hickory Dickory Dock title.

I realized while re-watching Hickory Dickory Dock just what a tremendous influence Agatha Christie's work was on the highly stylized Italian mystery films, or Gialli, of the 60s and 70s. Take the murder of Mrs. Nicoletis as an example. If you were to bump up the graphic nature of the scene, you would have something straight out of an early 70s Giallo. In fact, the entire plot of Hickory Dickory Dock could have been used in a Giallo. It's just convoluted and interesting enough to have worked.",Positive "THE VAN is a simple teensploitation picture made especially for the drive in that goes out of it's way to make you feel comfortable, providing many opportunities to laugh and cry with your friends. Danny Devito has a small yet plentiful role as the manager of a car wash and almost steals the show! All the leads are well acted, the characters complex and the directing quite competent for this type of picture. A Crown International Release.",Positive "So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.",Negative "This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?

But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.",Negative "I feel this is one of the best movies I've seen,I'm an older male and love most westerns. I love movies based in part at least on facts,If I am not mistaken this is such a movie. I also like revenge type movies,This qualifies there as well in my opinion.Some of my favorite parts of the movie were the opening scene with the whipping and the barn shooting scene. I felt the corral beating scene was a little overkill but did not affect how I feel about the complete movie. I saw what I think is a continuation of this movie in a gun smoke episode. I also enjoyed that.I recommend taking the time to watch this movie ,I will watch it again. I also felt the romance parts of this movie were well played. I thought it was so out of character for Randy Travis to play a villain type ,but I always enjoy his acting.",Positive "This is one of the finest music concerts anyone will ever see and hear. I grew up when All My Lovin' was brand new and to hear it again today by the original artist today is a measure of Sir P Mc's power to spellbind any crowd of any age. This doco goes way behind the scenes to show us life on the road not just for the band but everyone down to the roadies. I saw this guy live in Aussie 1975 and can assure you his performance here on this DVD is no less than he gave almost 30 years ago. I have a huge 5.1 surround sound system that does do this justice and would recommend this anyone especially a Beatles fan. This is the closest you will get to a Beatles concert today. Singer, Songwriter, lead/rhythm/ bass guitar, piano, ukulele, just pure genius. There are few entertainers who can stand alone with one instrument and hold the crowd in his hand. If you want note perfect music, buy a studio recorded CD. If you want to hear raw music as it is intended and spontaneous to the crowd, with all the excitement and emotion of the crowd-this DVD is for you.",Positive "I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story.",Positive "After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, ""Midnight"" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.",Positive "Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching ""At Dawn they Sleep."" The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.

Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.

Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.

But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL.

Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as ""War of the Robots"" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of ""At dawn they sleep"" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer ""i have no idea what happened in this movie""ness. ""Witches mountain"" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.",Negative "in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...

and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.

pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.

anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).

stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.",Negative "Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned.",Positive "I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.

The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.

This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.

It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.

A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ...",Negative I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.,Positive """Fraidy Cat"", the 4th of these cartoons, is a good one. At least I like it, so I'm surprised that this is getting mixed reviews.

This one is more of a macabre story than a funny one, although it has its moments of comedy. The atmosphere is dark and spooky. Suspense is another strong element here. As for humor, it's mostly dark humor.

In this short, Tom listens to a creepy radio show at night and is absolutely terrified because it is about ghosts, something he believes. While Tom is scared to death, Jerry is watching everything and can't help but laugh the whole time. In fact, Jerry quickly finds a way to torture him more and more. With the help of a white shirt and a vacuum cleaner he creates a big ""ghost"".

Tom lives the scariest experience of his whole life. Although Jerry scares Tom without a good reason, the way the story is made ends up being funny. Plus, once again, there is no violence here because this is one of Tom & Jerry's oldest cartoons. However, I don't get that joke of Tom's 9 lives nearly sucked into the vacuum cleaner.

When Tom finally finds out that it was all a Jerry's scheme and that Jerry made a fool out of him, Jerry is «caught with the hand in the cookie jar» (he deserves to be discovered). Yet, Tom shows an incredible patience before reacting. He angrily looks at Jerry for about a minute. The funny thing is that Jerry invites Tom to laugh with him and takes about half a minute to realize that Tom is looking at him with a very serious face. Jerry tries to be funny, but Tom doesn't laugh.

Overall, this is a different, peculiar and remarkable Tom & Jerry experience.",Positive "Naturally I didn't watch 'GI Jane' out of choice. I was more or less forced to watch this film round my ex-girlfriends house.

GI Jane loses its credibility straight away by trying to convince the viewer that it is potentially a real scenario, which of course it isn't. The result of this is that the story becomes automatically bound by constraints, restricting the amount of humour (of which there is none) or entertaining action scenes, and soon becomes too serious. The film therefore becomes extremely boring and predictable.

'GI Jane' fails where other action films succeed, mainly because films such as James Bond, Dirty Harry and various others are larger than life, yet never proclaim to be otherwise. They are escapism, and therefore entertaining. 'GI Jane' tries to be real and fails.

This is a very disappointing film from Ridley Scott, with a very non-credible storyline, unremarkable acting, and the only reason I give it 2/10 instead of 1/10 is for some of the technical work.",Negative "Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.

'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.

Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.

'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.",Negative "The basic storyline here is, Aditiya (Kumar) is the spoilt son of a millionaire, Ishwar (Bachan) who owns a toy industry, in Ishwar's eyes his son Aditya can do nothing wrong, Aditya's mother Sumitra (Shefali Shah) warns Ishwar to bring his son to the responsible path before it is too late, for Ishwar is a patient of lung cancer and has only 9 months to live, when his son elopes and marries Mitali (Chopra), Ishwar readily forgives Aditya, but when the happy couple Aditya and Mitali come back from a honeymoon, Mitali is pregnant, and this forces Ishwar to kick Aditya out of the house to make him more responsible, Aditya doesn't know his father is suffering from lung cancer, and he also doesn't know that his father has kicked him out of the hose to make him more responsible, Ishwar cannot bring himself to tall Aditya that he is about to die, with a hungry and pregnant wife. it is a race against time so Aditya does all he can to prove himself to his father, and the climax comes when Aditya gets his big break in the movie industry and his father tells him that he is about to die.

This movie is absolutely brilliant, this is the breakthrough in Indian cinema that was needed for the Bollywood industry, Shah's directing is almost flawless, but which movie doesn't have flaws? The best part if this movie is the father son relationship which is a tearjerker. the song interludes is just placed at the right time, the scenery is good, the only part where this movie fails is where the jokes between Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav the jokes are too long and after a bit they are annoying, but overall this is a brilliant movie, i advise anybody Reading this review to go and watch it regardless of other reviews. 9/10",Positive "I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).

A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name ""Wife Swap""; its better to be called as ""Mother Swap"". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for!

Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show.",Negative "This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.

Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!",Negative "For fans of 1970s Hammer type horror films, this movie should be a treat. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that Peter Cushing was wasted on the worst episode. In general, however, this is a solid, spooky little movie. If this is not Amicus' best film, it's certainly one of them. The best episode, rightfully saved for last, is the one featuring Jon Pertwee as a horror film actor--it is really excellent. As good as Pertwee was in this role, it's hard to believe he didn't do more of these types of movies. All in all, this is an entertaining movie, which scared the heck out of me as a child, and which still gives me the creeps to this day.",Positive "A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.

This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.

Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.

But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.

I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic ""I Spit on Your Grave"". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.

My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).

Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.",Negative "Very good western.This was the first time writer Richard Wilson directed a film, also this was a first for Samuel Goldwyn Junior as a producer. It is a pleasure to see a very young and pretty Angie Dickinson as a saloon girl. Robert Mitchum comes to this town dominated by outlaws and is hired as a town tamer, but people are worried that he will go too far, also about the harm that he will do to the town´s businesses. There are some similarities in the story with ""Warlock"" which was made in 1959. This film keeps a very fast and exciting pace, it really keeps you on the edge.",Positive "CLASS OF '61

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

In 1861, class members from the West Point Academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the Civil War.

Gregory Hoblit's OK historical drama makes an obvious point - virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict - though the production seems a little stilted, despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (Clive Owen, Christien Anholt, Josh Lucas, Andre Braugher, Laura Linney, etc.), toplined by Dan Futterman as a conscientious Southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery, pitting him in direct conflict with his former Northern friends. The movie's emphasis on such a misguided - though sympathetic - character is particularly brave, but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial, and Hoblit's direction is efficient rather than inspired.",Negative "Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as ""Dangerous Female""), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the ""original"" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't.

This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 ""Falcon"" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.",Negative "This film is famous for several qualities: a literate script, for once in partly-religious film-making, by Philip Dunne, some very good performances, a first-rate production in every department and its intelligent direction by veteran Henry King. If one were making a film, then getting such talents as Leon Shamroy as cinematographer, Lyle Wheeler as art director and Alfred Newman as composer of original music would guarantee a quality production. Add the cast of this film, including Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward as the title characters, James Robertson Justice, Raymond Massey, Kieron Moore, Jayne Meadows and John Sutton plus a dance by Gwen Verdon and expectations might be raised that the resulting film could be made into something special. But in a biblical subject script, usually a sub-genre prone to illogical motivations and miraculous interventions, everything would ultimately depend on the author's skills. Philip Dunne here has supplied human beings, a rare achievement in biblical films. David is a man in this film, many-sided, not someone doing mythical deeds on paper in the Old Testament. Gregory Peck makes him curious, passionate, self-controlled, self-deprecating and appealing. As Bathsheba, Hayward is scarcely the perfect choice but conveys a good deal of common-sense earthiness and emotional normalcy that helps one see why the King of Israel would risk so much for her. The rest of the cast is stalwart and capable by turns. The familiar storyline provides them little to work with, but author Dunne and the cast do as much as is possible with the human situations. David's youth is told in flashback; how he was chosen by a Prophet of Yahweh to be King of Israel, and earns his way to be second to the king, Saul, by defeating Goliath the Phiiistine in battle when all else are afraid to beard the giant warrior. Thereafter, he finally is driven from the court of King Saul of Israel, becomes a famous warrior, and returns to claim the kingdom and become the instrument of death of Jonathan, the King's son, formerly a friend. His wars are successful-- the film opens in fact with a successful attack scene; but his life is empty since his wife Michal, Jayne Meadows, is Saul's daughter and is cold to him. He turns to Bathsheba, whom he sees from the palace roof bathing naked; later she admits she had hoped he would see her. But she has a husband, Uriah; when she becomes pregnant, it becomes necessary for Uriah to come in from the battlefield and spend time at home; he instead asks David to set him in the forefront of the battle, even after being aroused by Verdon's dance. David agrees. He is killed, a war hero; but this does not solve the infidelity question. Drought comes to Israel, and the king's infidelity is blamed for the phenomenon. At last, David places his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, recently brought to Jerusalem and housed in a temple, which has caused the death of others who accidentally came in contact with it, inviting his god to punish him--and nothing happens...David exits the temple, and finds that rain has come to his parched land. This film is always interesting, varied in its types of scenes and physically beautiful. The director and author make use of the observer principle, and are frankly more successful in humanizing the characters than in almost any film outside the Grecianized- Near Eastern canon, wherein the feat is a bit easier since neither miraculous nor religious themes are made central in such adventures. . Well-remembered for its glowing realization, fine performances and intelligent dialogue, this dramatic effort bears repeated study.",Positive "YES, the plot is hardly plausible and very thin. YES, the acting does range from average to laughable. YES, it has been done so many times before. However what we are dealing with is a film that does not shy away from these facts and pretends to be nothing more than it is. There are indeed some original death scenes and the tension does increase throughout the movie. In addition you are never more than a few minutes away from a gory killing. I urge everyone to watch this film with an unprejudiced eye and see it for what it set out to be; a scary, funny slasher flick with a theme tune second to none.",Positive I regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste!,Negative "Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!",Positive "No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.

I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.",Negative "Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****",Negative "Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made.",Negative "Dog days is one of most accurate films i've ever seen describing life in modern cities. It's very harsh and cruel at some points and sadly it's very close to reality. Isolation, desperation, deep emotional dead ends, problematic affairs, perversion, complexes, madness. All the things that are present in the big advanced cities of today. It makes you realize once again the pityful state in which people have lead society.

The negative side of life in the city was never pictured on screen so properly. I only wish it was a lie. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore...10/10.",Positive "I fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just ""let's see what soap operatically happens this week"" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.

The Cylon ""babe"" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about ""story arcs"".

It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.

This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG.",Negative "A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly ""gorgeously stark"" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would ""read"" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.",Negative "Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, ""Strange Case"" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. ""Good Lord.""",Positive "It's not often I feel compelled to give negative criticism of a film; after all I often feel the maxim, ""if you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all,"" would be apt advice for the many naysayers we listen to everyday who nitpick at things we like. If it's all the same to you the reader though I feel compelled to point out that with the lone exception of Christopher Walken in a returning role as Gabriel this movie is pathetically HORRID. I say this to you to warn you in advance that even if you are a fan of Walken's deadpan delivery and style or liked the original ""Prophecy"" that you will be sorely dissapointed. If you buy it, return it. If you rent it, make sure it's only ninety-nine cents.

What's wrong with this movie? A full list would take too long to read and would bore you to tears, but a short summary would be the following: the once rather crystalline clear picture of the relationship between angels and mortals of the first film is ripped to shreds. Gabriel is turned from the rather morbid right hand of God he once was (and in this role he is WICKEDLY funny in the first) to little more than a thug for heaven. Since Walken is so good at playing heavies (we all remember Frank White from ""King of New York"") he is still enjoyable but the supporting cast is an unmitigated and unconvincing mess of mortals and angels alike who couldn't buy a clue for 50 cents. If you can figure out the plot you're a smarter man than I. One gets the feeling we wander aimlessly from scene to scene just to move the film along to Walken's next big line. By the end of the movie you're actually wishing he'd blow his horn and make the walls of Jericho fall on the people who made this un-natural disaster.

Bottom line - it's an insult to our intelligence that they made a sequel to this film in the first place. The original told the right story, answered the questions that should have been, and left alone the ones you were meant to ponder afterwards. There are no compelling reasons to follow these characters that was in the first - the priest who lost his faith, the little girl who kept the ""big secret"", the teacher who protected her children - even Lucifer himself was more interesting BY himself in the first film than all the other characters in the sequel put together. I feel sorry for anybody who sees this film and not the first because they'll probably never want to watch the original and that's a real tragedy.",Negative "I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.

One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.

Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it.",Positive "When I was flicking through the TV Guide, and came across ""Twisted Desire"" on the movie section, I read it's description. Three words caught my eye ""Melissa Joan Hart"" ...I find her role in ""Sabrina: The Teenage Witch"" absolutely vile, I hate those kind of programs, so I was just thinking that it was going to be a boring old, love story starring her...Little did I know.

It finally started on the television, I had my bucket ready in case I were to puke over it's cheesiness or soppiness, you know what I mean. At first, you think she's just a nice, ordinary girl who's in love, but has mean parents. Then when you find out she's manipulated her boyfriend into killing her parents, so she could be with her TRUE love, you're like ""Whoa"". You just don't expect this sort of role for that sort of actress. She played her role very well in my opinion, I never expected her to be able to act like such a bitch, and voilà, she did it perfectly! Congrats to her, the movie was very good, I'd definitely watch it again and recommend it to others.",Positive "This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy ""K-9"". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as ""This House Possessed"" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull.",Negative """Hollywood North"" is an euphemism from the movie industry as they went to Canada to make movies because of tax breaks and cheaper costs in a civilized city like Toronto, in this case, later in Vancouver. Peter O'Brian, the director, probably saw a lot of the invaders from California that this movie seems to be the right way to deal with the arriving personalities trying to capitalize on the economics that Canada presented.

Needless to say, ""Moon Lantern"", the successful novel written by a Canadian author is turned into ""Flight to Bogota"", which has nothing to do with the original film. A great egotistical has-been, Michael Baytes, who is obsessed with what is happening in Iran, is offered the lead part, which turns to be a disaster.

The film seems to be saying that too many cooks have spoiled the broth, which seems to be the case with the ultimate product, which is saved by its producer, Bobby Myers. With the help of Sandy Ryan, who has been around making a documentary of the film being shot in Toronto, parts of the film are transformed into a cohesive movie at last.

The filming process is hilarious, and the acting, in general, is good.",Positive "Normally I would have given this movie a 6. It tackles a very important topic and it does it relatively well - despite Katie Wright which is an accomplishment in and of itself.

I have no idea if she was actually instructed to play the character like this or is naturally irritating, but she did an awesome job at making it impossible for me to care for Lexi. There's no dimension to her other than how confused, helpless and clueless she is, and how good she is at whimpering. I can understand how a young girl who blames herself for the loss of her friend and whose eating disorder has spiraled out of control would be distraught, scared and in pain. However, Wright's entire performance is based on incessant wailing and sniveling, the rest being whining. I couldn't help but feel this particular girl's problem was caused not by the demon that is Bulimia, but by her not having a backbone. I very much doubt that's the point the movie meant to make.",Negative "There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.

Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.

I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.

Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even ""civilised"" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.

This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.",Negative "On second viewing of this movie, I like it even more than the first time. It is full of nuances and a perception of life as being quite ordinary and often fearful but what lifts this movie to a height rarely realized is its focus on the little incidences in our lives to which we normally only offer the briefest of attention spans. Here the movie spins into the celebration of these incidences, the meeting of a tow truck driver and client, the jogger hearing a baby's cry from the bushes. The dialogue, acting, casting and direction are superb. No two by fours, no grand revelations. What I did observe was how true the characters were to their basic natures and how enhanced their lives became when these were celebrated. Kudos to all involved in this, we need more ""Grand Canyons"" in our lives. 9 out of 10.",Positive This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.

The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...

Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...

THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...,Negative "Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!

This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying….sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better.

But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm………..

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.",Negative "Also known as the Big Spook War. The Great Yokai War is Miike's attempt at a family film and damn fine job he does as well. The problem is that I can't imagine many parents wanting to subject their children to this movie. The best kids movies are the ones that are scary or have mildly disturbing imagery, Neverending Story and Return to Oz spring to mind, but in the case of the Great Yokai War Miike probably takes things a little too far. In fact at the screening I was at the person introducing the movie reiterated to the two families there that it was probably not very suitable.

The film kicks off with the young hero of the piece introducing himself and explaining about his current family problems. This brief moment of mundanity is sharply broken as a cow gives birth to a calf with the face of a human whom screams that something horrendous is coming before falling dead like the abomination it is (it is quite possible that the sheer hideousness of the creature is some bizarre Quato homage).

Following an incredible introduction for main baddie Kato, and his henchwoman Agi (a surprisingly attractive Chiaki Kuriyami), by way of an apocalyptic army raising. The story reverts to normal for a while, but it doesn't take long before any and all logic goes down the drain and the young boy teams up with a group of Miyazaki rejects to take out the evil sorcerer.

The plot of the movie is fairly basic and surprisingly hackneyed at times, the entire chosen one just seems completely out of place in a movie which so regularly breaks clichés, but is aided by a simple awe inspiring vision of a magical world. This really is a Miyazaki movie made into a live action movie, albeit a much seedier and more vicious than usual Miyazaki movie.

The film is simply a joy to look at the designs of the Yokai is colourful, and largely practical, while the evil robotic monstrosities while not displaying the best CGI in the world have a practicality and menace to them which gives them far more of a palpable threat than you would imagine.

The cast is uniformly excellent, they just make their characters seem perfectly natural which is commendable when you consider that most of them are in full body makeup or latex suits. Even Agi lumbered with a ridiculous beehive comes across as sultry and deadly thanks to surprisingly excellent acting from Kuriyami.

While the film does have many elements which put it firmly into family movie territory; cute creatures, junior heroes, a thoroughly evil villain, a sense of mischief and adventure, and a telling lack of violence. There are elements which make you question whether Miike should have directed such a movie.

The robot army is a genuinely terrifying menace everyday items warped into monstrous beasts that look like T-101 sans skin and with added chainsaws. These beasts rip characters to pieces; suck creatures into their blood stained mouths, and abduct children from their homes by swiping them right from under their parent's nose before indulging in a little patricide.

The creation of the creature is equally arduous for young minds. The Yokai, essentially the heroes, are feed into a giant furnace full of a liquidised form of hate which corrodes the Yokai's flesh and forces their angry souls to possess lumps of metal. If kids thought smouldering Anakin was bad wait til they see a man sized hedgehog burning to death in a vat of molten hatred for a minute before being turned into an abomination of a motorcycle. There is also limb severing, in one case a severed hand twitches in front of the camera dripping with blood, a fair amount of sexual energy (Agi wears one dress designed specifically for fan service and seems to only have sleeping with Kato as motivation, while the Princess of the Rivers wears next to nothing and gets her thighs groped by the young hero in several scenes), and general humour which will go right over the heads of those that this technicolour wonder was seemingly designed for.

Spoilers An Example of this being that the Yokai only become interested in the final battle when they think it is a big party. The subsequent battle more of a festival than anything, complete with beer, crowd surfing and moshing. Also a scene where Agi beats the tar out of a cute furry creature seems designed to appeal to the masses jaded by pokemon overkill.

End Spoilers At the end of the day The Great Yokai War is easily on of Miike's stronger recent films. While it lacks some of the perverse charm of say Gozu or Ichi it is just continually pushing the audience down a road of general insanity. In fact this is easily Miike's most deranged movie in that he embraces the sheer magic of the subject so wholeheartedly.

Well worth a watch just for the occasional flash of Gogo arse.",Positive "The Invisible man is a show everybody s gotta love! It reminds me of the old school 80's series(a-team,airwolf,knightrider) The special effects are small but very effective!! but what is most important is the fun they had shooting this series. It really shows! the entire cast fit perfect in there roles and it looks like they can do whatever they want!! especially Paul Ben Victor and Vincent Ventresca. Ventresca really shines in this one! for me its unbelievable that an actor with so much sarcasm is his acting style Doesn't get a shot in a big movie (mr Tarantino this was the show you should have directed! instead of that major boring grave danger(c.s.i)) Get this show if you can. well worth it!!!",Positive "Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee?",Positive "I should have never watched this movie. The style of filming may be considered artsy to some, but it is considered migraine-inducing to me. I think it may have had an interesting plot, but since I couldn't watch it for long stretches at a time I missed a lot. The flickering pictures and stop motion filming branded my brain. I stopped watching mid way through and won't be back for a second try. I suppose if I were home alone in my own lighthouse some dark and stormy evening, this might be just the ticket... PS Not sure if the lighthouse/ film style thing can be considered a spoiler, but I don't want to be blacklisted on my first review ;)",Negative Okay so I went into this movie not really expecting much I figured an action flick similar to The Fast and the Furious. Some nice cars some nice girls somewhat of a decent plot. Unfortunately I would have to say that this was probably the worst movie I have seen this year. Don't get me wrong the cars were nice and the girls were OK but the way they put the movie together was just plain crappy to put it nicely. The story just never made you care about the cast and the movie seemed just pieced together. So overall this movie was not the worst thing ever by far but if your looking for a movie to go to this weekend I would pass on this one for now.,Negative "Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of ""The Three Amigos"", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which ""Play Dead"" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which ""Play Dead"" is. What ""Play Dead"" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from ""A Simple Plan"", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK",Negative "I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.

As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some ""dramatic"" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia ""heals"" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!

Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic ""no""-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.",Negative "I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle ""The Bread, My Sweet"", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.)

The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).

The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.

This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)

There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.

Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)",Negative "In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale ""Romulus, My Father,"" Eric Bana, of ""Munich"" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).

Even though I admire ""Romulus, My Father"" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.",Negative "This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to ""The Prisoner of Zenda"") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to ""Chinks!"" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.",Negative "Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.

If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life – a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.

The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.

With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.

I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche – I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen.",Positive "You have to respect this movie. It may be ""just a dumb kid's movie"" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.

A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being ""put out to pasture."" Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.

Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.

Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults ""the old encyclopedia"" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the ""youngberry tree."" However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.

Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter ""the hairy behemoth,"" which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be ""digested."" The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.

Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his ""noodle"" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.

Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror.",Negative "Giallo fans, seek out this rare film. It is well written, and full of all sorts of the usual low lifes that populate these films. I don't want to give anything away, so I wont even say anything about the plot. The whole movie creates a very bizarre atmosphere, and you don't know what to expect or who to suspect. Recommended! The only place I've seen to get this film in english is from European Trash Cinema, for $15.",Positive "This project was originally conceived as the movie version of popular Japanese manga SlamDunk! and that's not something new to Jay Chou, who made his movie debut playing a character from another wildly popular manga Initial D. Along the way, it was decided to incorporate some kung fu into the movie, so hence the title, even if the idea wasn't very original, with Stephen Chow's Shaolin Soccer coming to mind with martial arts and ball games combined.

However, and thankfully, those scenes where kung fu actually influenced the games were kept to a bare minimum, and in Kung Fu Dunk, really quite unnecessary, because they don't add much to the plot nor drum up much excitement, and at most offered some cheap laughs and reminisced about the time when Stephen Chow used kung fu in football games. Jay Chou is comfortable in his role as a martial artist Fang Shi-jie since it's not the first time he fought using martial arts (Curse of the Golden Flower anyone?), and under the stunt direction of Ching Siu-Tung, he was made to look really believable as he trashes countless of gangsters in a bar as seen in the trailer, just to let you know who's boss.

That was almost why his character is made a kung fu practitioner, and for the fact of giving him an excuse for being a top shot, able to shoot the hoops from practically any angle. And with Eric Tsang as a small time hustler Chen-Li who sees his potential and becomes his agent, he joins a university to play varsity basketball, but not without the initial objection of team captain Ting-wei (Chen Bo-Lin) and team star Xiao-lan (Baron Chen, in his big-screen debut). But you know with team members on the same side, it's not before long they combine their strengths to take on adversaries on the basketball court.

And I will stick my neck out to say that this movie is to basketball just as how Goal was to football. It made the sport look good because of its charismatic characters, despite them dripping so much coolness and aloofness on the courts. Here, special effects and wire-work were employed to make the actors seem like professionals who can take out a top side in the NBA league, and in all honesty, really looked stunning, especially when they mimic various dunking moves, and performing combo-moves thanks to technology and stunt work. So in actuality, the kung fu elements don't really have to be in the movie. The stunt work itself will be able to justify most of the moves as they're quite grounded to reality, only having you to suspend belief that boys of average height have springs in their feet to leap that height for a professional dunk.

Pity too that the number of games were only a handful, with the time spent on plenty of subplots, but each were loosely developed and flitted in and out of the story as and when they please. Things like the abandoned Shi-jie's quest to use the basketball games to get his parents to one day attend them, that of gangsterism penetrating and influencing games, and his love life with Charlene Choi in yet another flower vase role just to look good and do nothing else. Everyone's acting a little too cool, leaving little room for main characters to add depth. One of the key themes here is the realization of the importance of teamwork rather than on individual talent and ability, and it could have been brought out much stronger if the players themselves interacted a lot more off the court, than only on it, and during competitive games, apart from the high-fives and friendly passes.

With the US$10 million budget, it is easy to see where the money went to - the effects, in particular, a massive fantasy sequence at a crucial point in the movie. It's quite flawless, nice to look at and probably justifiable on its quality alone, but again I like to emphasize, that even without those elements, the basketball stunts itself would still make this a decent movie with nifty basketball moves. And having Jay Chou playing for your team is a big boost to any hopes of a box office success.",Positive "May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.

Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.

The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.

The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.

What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.

And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.

/hjm",Negative "If you know the story of Grey Owl, you'll love the movie! Annie Galipeau is a great actress, and Pierce is better than never in Grey Owl. But in this movie there's no real scene of action. I think this movie should be nominated at the Oscars! Welll go see this movie, it's A CLASSIC!",Positive I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.,Negative "Oh, this is such a glorious musical. There's a bit of miscasting -- Frank Sinatra is sorely miscast as the Jewish Nathan Detroit, though it only becomes evident on ""Sue Me"", which is a distinctly Jewish song. Sadly, the filmmakers decided to cut out one of the best songs from the show, ""Marry the Man Today"", and replaced it with an inferior Sinatra showpiece. With these two flaws in mind, the movie is otherwise magnificent. Jean Simmons shines as Sarah Brown. Marlon Brando can't sing worth beans, but pulls it off anyway. Stubby Kaye wonderfully reprises his Broadway role (it was written for him). Damon Runyon's language and pacing and humor come through quite well. This is on my see-it-every-chance-I-get list.",Positive """Read My Lips"" tells of a strange symbiosis which develops between a plain, socially maladroit female office worker (Devos) and her workplace trainee, a crude excon (Casel). As the film fleshes out this unlikely duo down to their ids they become embroiled in a chilling merging of the minds, each using the other for their own selfish reasons with an extraordinary outcome. Good stuff for anyone into character-driven films with strong psychodramatic undercurrents. In French with easy to read subtitles and good translation. (B+)",Positive "Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.

Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.

Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN

23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN

Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.

Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN

The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep.",Negative "Centered in the downtown and out skirts of Detroit, this comedy I found to be a terrific new comedic duo. 'Noriyuki Pat Morita' is a very funny man, who happens to be a cop from Japan on the trail of an industrial secrets thief, who has stolen a 'proto type' turbo super charger, reluctantly he goes to the United States to follow the thief, after being ordered by his commander. Pat's character collides with 'Jay Leno's' character, a fast talking' but down to business-player type Detroit cop. When they cross paths though, the honorable 'Ways' of Japan meet the all-out old school Detroit police investigative 'Ways'. The two stumble and trip over each other at first, but then develop a 'rythym' that turns into an explosive two layered powerhouse team, that solves the case, cold. After battling a city crime boss for the stolen 'equiptment' and closing the case, these two go from despising each other to being friends and working well together. A little worse for wear and in need of an extended-vacation on top of it all, they manage to come to a victorious closing. I rated this a 9. Lewis's direction makes' this a near perfect comedy. Fun for all ages. I recommend it highly.(***)",Positive "When many people say it's the ""worst movie I've ever seen"", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like. However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry. This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness. I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.

---Spoiler alert---

Oh my, where to begin. Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after. Puke. Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY. The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier. The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them). I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher.",Negative "A novel by Remarque. A cast that looks great on paper. A left-wing refugee struggling to remain in Paris between the wars. A Gestapo officer undercover.

It's a pity there's no synergy here. The bits and pieces never coalesce.

Stories about left-wing refugees in France don't have to be this dull. Read Arthur Koestler's memoir ""Scum of the Earth"" (if you can find it). Or his chilling ""Dialogue With Death"" (ditto).

To me, the only interest in this film lies in some of the incidental details.

The leads spend a lot of time drinking calvados, the Norman apple brandy. I welcome any prompting to have a nip of calvados myself. It certainly made this film appear to pass more quickly. But, according to the film, it's only sold in cheap, low-class saloons. Vive le tabac parisien! That's what I say. References to intoxicating liquors do abound here; that would seem to be a preoccupation of the scenarists.

I enjoy films set in France because it can be amusing waiting for the inevitable full-size alcohol ad to pop up on a wall in the background. I wasn't disappointed. This time it was for Byrrh, a very unusual choice. This film would rate a 10 if only we were judging it on the refinement of its booze murals.

The film's indifferent score is by Louis Gruenberg. Gruenberg is best known -- if you can call it that -- for his opera ""The Emperor Jones"", based on the O'Neill play. It premièred at roughly the same time as the film version starring Paul Robeson. The opera survives today in a recording or two by Lawrence Tibbett. It should surface again soon though; they're running out of potentially marketable operas to revive.

Opera seems an appropriate subject to mention here since Charles Boyer's character operates under his ""Czech"" aliases. Two of them are ""Wozzeck"" and ""Gunther"", both prominent roles in German opera. Is that just coincidence?

Name-dropping just seems to be part of this film. Notice that they call up ""Himmelstoss"" on the phone. Himmelstoss happens to be one of the main characters in Remarque's earlier ""All Quiet on the Western Front"".

Well, the in-jokes are all in place; guess there wasn't time to develop any drama.",Negative "Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first ""My Girl"" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as ""earpeircing a barbaric custom"" are just shocking. Where ""My Girl"" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels ""My Girl 2"" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to ""Son of the mask"" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; ""if it ain't broke, don't fix it"".",Negative "I own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.

It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.

If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it is.",Negative "If you enjoy the subtle (yes, I said subtle) actions and reactions of John Candy, you can't help but like this film (pronounced ""fillum"" by Salvatore DiPasquale). The unobservant (and uninformed) watcher always saw Candy as a broad actor - a big buffoon. And sometimes he was (see ""Stripes"" and ""Splash""). But, when given the opportunity, he could really be razor-sharp and quite subtle. It's too bad he was cast in so many roles that only showed his broad side, because we'll never get to see more of the other. Oh, yeah, the movie. One can watch ""Going Berserk"" over and over (I know I have) with the frequency of ""Caddyshack."" It's just that good. The plot, although a little convoluted, is actually fairly deep for a farce of this kind. It allows Candy and the always under-rated Joe Flaherty and Eugene Levy to bounce off of Candy...and they bounce HARD. Definitely worth a glance for anyone who enjoyed SCTV or Candy's other work.",Positive "The main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.

Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.

The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's ""Fulltime Killer"" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks.",Negative "Ah, noir. My favourite genre. Otto Preminger's follow-up to ""Laura"" is a film noir set in a postwar New York, where corruption and violence run rampant. It stars Dana Andrews as Sergeant Mark Dixon, a detective whose brutal tactics have landed him in hot water with his superiors.

When he accidentally kills a murder suspect, Dixon tries to pin the blame on crime boss Tommy Scalese. Dixon is close to achieving his goal when he becomes involved with the dead man's wife, the beautiful Morgan Taylor. Of course, in typical noir fashion, things quickly go down hill.

While the film does nothing interesting camera or narrative wise, it does have a constant tone of dread and gloom. Like most great noirs, it is also wonderfully paced, sucking the viewer in right from the start.

Still, like most of Preminger's workmanlike films, it's not something I'd watch again. It lacks the verbal wit of Wilder, the visual flamboyance of Hitchcock or the spatial experimentation of Welles. Like Lang's later work, ""Sidewalk"" feels very much a ""clone"" of what a noir should be, instead of something really artistically genuine.

Thematically the film is nothing special. It's about a cop who finds himself slowly becoming a criminal. In one scene Dixon explains that his father himself was a small time crook, the film flirting with the notion of predestination, but this one scene is as far as Otto goes, or dares to take his ideas.

The camera work is likewise disappointing. There's no intelligence in Otto's camera. No effort is made to assign the camera to anything. It doesn't play with space or architecture or empahsise the step-by-step police procedural. It's just tripod set ups with the occasional dolly in and out. Meaningless, though most people don't care about these things.

There is, however, one good shot where our hero is trapped in a car full of gangsters (noir cage) which itself enters a vehicle-lift (another cage) and is taken up into the chief gangster's lair. Like Lynch's ""Blue Velvet"", Otto retopologizes the film, constantly likens ""upstairs"" to hell. This works well, but the set design fails to reinforce it.

7/10 - Otto seems content to follow the Hawksian mould of what a noir is, rather than toy with the possibilities of where noir can go. Like ""Detour"", ""Night in the City"", ""Scarlet Street"", ""In A Lonely Place"", ""Act of Violence"", ""Bomberang"" and ""Johnny Eager"", ""Where the Sidewalk Ends"" is one of those well made second tier film noirs. It's competent and engaging, but lacks that extra special magic.",Positive "during eddie murphy's stand up a women from the audience yells at eddie and a man from the audience responds. what is said is,, women - DO MR ROB (this is a character from Saturday night live), the man responds with SHUT UP BITCH. unlike the previous post saying the women yelled do gumby, this is incorrect, although the post-er said he was there they must have a hearing problem! despite what the post-er says about not being able to here it on DVD have a close listen as you actually can hear it on the DVD - DO MR ROB!!!! i hope this helps anyone curious out the outburst cheers gaz!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!",Positive "The plot of "" Astronuat returns to Earth as a mutating monster "" died out in the 1950s mainly down to the scientific fact that travelling outside the Earth's orbit doesn't humans cause to turn in to mutated monsters , and that the first film to use this plot THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was the only decent sci-fi movie to use the idea . So the idea of having the redundant plot return seems doomed from the start . Alas watching THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN it seems the plot is the least of its problems

First of all this is an incredibly badly made movie . The budget is in single figures and I'm talking about lira not dollars . There is no cinematography to speak of and there's countless editing blunders . For example a photographer takes his ( Barely legal ) model for a photo shoot . Cut to a shot where the sun is directly behind model , then cut to shot of photographer where the sun is directly behind him, then cut back to the model where the sun is ...

The lack of budget drags the film down in other aspects too . According to the trivia page the budget was so low the producers couldn't get any stock footage of Saturn so when astronaut Steve West mentions how beautiful Saturn looks we get footage of the sun . Actually the sun gives the most impressive performance in the film since the human actors wouldn't be employed by a porn studio . If I was appearing in this I wouldn't be scared by the eponymous monster - I'd be terrified of splinters from the rest of the cast . Perhaps we should be slightly forgiving though since the obvious lack of budget manifests itself in things like the actors having to wear their own clothes . A general for instance doesn't wear his nice fancy dress uniform complete with medals - he wears a denim jacket and baseball cap

There has to be suspension of disbelief for a film like this to work but it fails on every level . The tone is set early on in the film where Mr Melty murders a nurse and escapes from the hospital . Instead of the police getting a call saying there's been a murder Dr Nelson just decides to track down his patient on his own own same as he'd look for a missing cat . It's also strange a thoroughly decomposing homicidal monster can walk down the road without anyone noticing , but this is typical of a film where horny 70 year olds stop their car down dark roads for a quickie and people nonchalantly mention their wife is pregnant whilst forgetting to tell the police that there's a monster on the loose .

THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is Z grade rubbish . I can certainly understand why people enjoy this movie because it does reach the heights of "" It's so bad it's good "" but apart from Rick Baker's sometimes impressive make up effects it's nothing more than a very guilty pleasure",Negative "I watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on, it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. I urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be, surely it was deliberate. I cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish, unrehearsed, badly executed way that it was beyond belief. This is the movie that makes Spiceworld look like Goodfellas, think I am exaggerating? Well give it airtime and think again. Dreadful, utterly dreadful. If this wasn't a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.",Negative """Men of honor"" - true story about a proud and persistent black navy diver (fabulous Cuba Gooding Jr.) is definitely a great movie that both touches and entertains and it's part of the absolute cream of the new millennium cinema. Wonderful acting is the main reason to make this movie something truly special and pretty enjoyable, splendid experience. Charismatic Robert De Niro is marvelous as rough, fierce and pitiless chief Billy Sunday - role is practically written for him. This film alongside with fantastic ""15 minutes"" (2001) are two of the latest proofs that he's still one of the very finest actors of our time. On the other hand ""Men of honor"" includes a fine performance from Cuba Gooding Jr. who has been one of the most promising young black actors since ""Boyz n the hood"". ""Men of honor"" goes straight into the company of ""Jerry Maguire"", ""As good as it gets"" and ""Instinct"". Cuba Gooding Jr. is a skillful and fantastic actor and I'm prepared to get lots of more terrific movies from him. ""Men of honor"" has also quite an excellent story-line and probably the most exciting diving sequences of the movie history. This is a great, fascinating movie and I can only recommend it.",Positive "Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith!",Positive "The movie was gripping from start to finish and its b/w photography of the American heartland is stunning. We feel we are right there with them as they cross the big sky country and then into Mexico and back to America again. Near the end of the movie, the reflection of the rain on Robert Blake looks like small rivers of sweat and tears rolling down his face. In the end, we follow them up the stairway to their final moment.

The two criminals, performed by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as Perry Smith and Dick Hickock could be seen on any street in any town. Hickock is a smiling boy next door and Smith, the guy with stars in his eyes from the wrong side of town. This point is made in the movie and it always surprises us that criminals are no different in appearance than anyone else. Evil, even the most vile, is part of the human condition. These two delusional men kill an entire family, looking for a safe that isn't there. Once on the run, they start writing bad cheques, carving out a trail for the authorities.

There are many fine supporting actors. I like John Forsyth as the detective on the case, Alvin Dewey. Also, Will Geer shines in a brief but excellent scene as the prosecuting attorney.

I have often wanted to see this movie all the way through, having only caught it in short snatches; I did finally get to it after buying the DVD. The result is the finest classic crime movie I have ever seen.

Don't miss this brilliant movie. To me, this is what great film-making is all about.",Positive "How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.",Positive "Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic.",Positive "I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to ""get into"" the movie.

I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.",Negative "Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another ""user"" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about ""Midnight Cowboy"" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of ""Midnight Cowboy"". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The ""trivia"" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of ""Ratzo"" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the ""users"" thought ""Joe Buck"" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the ""users"" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of ""Midnight Cowboy"" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as ""Deliverance"". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between ""Ratzo"" and ""Joe"" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. ""Joe's"" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. ""The party"" ? - attend some of the ""raves"" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking ""this isn't real"", look at today's ""ladies"" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality ""Joe"" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. ""Joe"" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps ""only in America"" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......",Positive "It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.

I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I.

As the ""man"" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).

If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss.",Positive "The dialogue was pretty dreadful. The plot not really all that inspired beyond the obvious twist it presents. Not visually stunning. Actually visually annoying at times. Most definitely one of those films you find easier to finish if you keep one finger on the fast forward button. If you could watch it for free, have absolutely no other options open at the moment and you really dig seeing the little poltergeist lady... well maybe I'd recommend it to you, but not anyone else I could think of at the moment.",Negative """Kalifornia"" is one of my all-time favourite movies, and it easily could be labeled as one of the best psychological thrillers of the 90`s. The film has a very stylish surface to it, but behind that are a lot of disturbing and honest depictions of homicidal maniacs and the terrifyng violence they inflict upon others. One of the film`s strongest aspects is it`s performances, Brad Pitt is startlingly great as a trailer-trash psycho named Early. Pitt potrays his frightening character almost flawlessly. Juliette Lewis is equally as good playing his naive girlfriend, her innocence is almost heart-breaking. ""Kalifornia"" has a very simple plot to it, that goes steadily and slowly forward for about an hour, but it suddenly plunges into a harrowing spree of murder, as Pitt unleashes his psychotic personality. There are alot of shocking scenes, and it all mounts to a power-house climax that will haunt you for days. ""Kalifonia"" is a film that should really be watched for it`s intense look at how monstrous a human being can be, and not only for it`s violence and gore.",Positive "The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.

Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.

It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.

Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating!

Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.",Negative "almost every review of this movie I'd seen was pretty bad. It's not pretty bad, it's actually pretty good, though not great. The Judy Garland character could have gotten annoying, but she didn't allow it to. Somewhere along the line, i've become a fan of brooding, overbearing, overacting Van Heflin, at least in the early 40's. Judy's singing is great, but the film missed a great chance by not showing more of their relationship. I gave it a 7.",Positive "Lame plot and two-dimensional script made characters look like cardboard cut-outs. Needless to say, this made it difficult to feel empathy for any of the characters, especially the fiancé; He looked and acted more like a cartoon. In summary, I guess you could say it was on par with your typical made for TV drama. It uses just about every cliché in the book. The tortured classical musician who wants to break-out and play salsa. The free-spirited fiancée engaged to a ""bean counter"" personality she doesn't love. I won't list them or else it would be a spoiler because I'd be giving away the whole plot. The dancing was OK but nothing special. I've seen worse. 3 stars for good music. The band was really tight. I saw it on YouTube. Thankfully I didn't pay good money to see it at a theater. I'm still a little shocked at how many great reviews this movie has garnished.",Negative "Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it.",Negative "The words ""Swedish"" and ""Action movie"" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.

Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.

This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no ""ups"", just ""downs"". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the ""cool"" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.

And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.

I rate this 4/10 for effort.",Negative """The Domino Principle"" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream ""I give up!!!""

How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.

I hope they spent their money well.",Negative "First of all, the actor they have to play Jesus has blue eyes... half the actors they have playing Jews have blue eyes. Aren't there enough brown-eyed actors out there? Jesus being depicted as having blue eyes is one of my pet peeves. He was a full-blooded Jew! Second of all, what is it with old English-language movies that are supposed to take place in non-English-speaking countries, and everybody has English accents? (Another example is David Lean's ""Dr. Zhivago"".) Aren't there enough either Jewish actors or actors who can do a Israeli accent? The movie often is not true to the Scriptures, and so seems to doubt the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. In the bible, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice comes from heaven saying ""This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased"" (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In the movie, John the Baptist says this! The screenwriter seems to be trying to portray the believers as crazy, as well. For example, in the bible, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38), but in the movie, we do not see or hear any angel - Mary appears to be talking to a moonbeam, and when Mary's mother hears her talking to someone and peeks in on her, she doesn't hear or see anyone either. Also, in the movie, when Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem, he says, ""You shall not see me here again, not until you learn to cry, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord', for I and my father are one and the same."" The correct line (Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35)is ""You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"" Period. Jesus never claimed to be God. The movie cuts out a lot of important parts (the Sermon on the Mount is very expurgated), but then spends a lot of time on stuff that isn't even in the bible (a whole scene with Mary Magdalene talking with a john). It seems like the screenwriter, instead of wanting to do a movie version of the Scriptures, wanted to make a movie about what he thinks might have really happened behind (and between) the scenes. The movie has one gem though - during the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, at Matthew the tax collector's house, I had tears streaming down my face. It is the best movie I've seen about Jesus's ministry (but that isn't saying much, because the others are just terrible). ""Jesus Christ Superstar"" is my favourite movie about Jesus's last days (""The Passion of the Christ"" is way too graphic), though I like how ""Jesus of Nazareth"", instead of just ending with Jesus's death, continues on and shows his resurrection.",Negative "One of the best movies I ever saw was an Irish movie titled Philadelphia,Here I Come. I read the play before I saw the movie and loved them both. It's the story of a young man preparing to leave Ireland to go to America because he can't earn a living in Ireland. It is told both from the perspective of the young man(whom the other characters in the film can see) and another young man representing his uncensored thoughts and feelings., but who cannot be seen by the other characters in the film. It is a very sad movie, but deeply touching, and I would recommend this film to anyone who wants something to think about. I love any Irish movie, or almost any movie about Ireland, and any film that has the late Irish actor Donal McCann in it gets my vote.I would watch that man chew gum for 2 hours on screen, and unfortunately,I have.Terrible shame to have lost him so young.",Positive "The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.

If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's ""Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key.""",Negative 14 years since this show was made and it is still is the best show ever made. The writing was 1st class and the production second to none. This show would never be made today and that this a shame. I hope if you are thinking about finding this show to watch that you do.

AG came out the year I left high school at the time my fav TV show was the x files this gives you an idea of why I first got into this show. AG was a far better program with better writing but only got one reason? I know this is not the only program to only get one season another example that comes to mind would be the lone gunman (x files spin off) it had good writing and was funny but also only got one season. It does not seem right!

We also have to remember that this show was around before shows like twilight made dark shows 'cool' so I think this may have also let to the show going down hill.

Watch this program and enjoy it! 10 out of 10 for me.,Positive "Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.

Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.

His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.

I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.

This guy has a grudge that won't end.

I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.

The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.

Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.

Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.",Negative "STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.

As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.

Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.

As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **",Negative "The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain – actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father – ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the ""Euro-Cult"" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!",Negative "This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.

These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.

Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.

Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)

Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'",Negative "Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography.",Positive "I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.",Positive "I thought it would at least be aesthetically beautiful. It was slow, pretentious, and boring. I almost fell asleep. There are some decent songs, but there is this one song at the end which is just some guy yelling out ""Yaowwww!"" while someone taps randomly on a wooden object. That being said, there are some pretty songs, but it's not worth seeing hte movie over. Go on itunes (they have the album), preview it, and choose the good ones.

Half the movie is some guy making tea. Well, that's a slight exaggeration. But you'll see what I mean if you see it. That being said: DON'T SEE IT!",Negative "Wow, I loved this film. It may not have had the funding and advertising that the latest hollywood blockbusters get but it packs twice the emotional punch. The tale revolves around this one family from Utah and it's the connections between the people in the family that provide the film with its punch. The main lead (Giovanni Ribisi) plays his part very well, at no time does he leave you to believe that he's acting all his feelings. It's his brother (Elias Koteas) who stole the show for me though. When the two were in scenes together they bounded their lines off of each other, giving fantastic performances. Great cast, great film.",Positive "maybe i need to have my head examined,but i thought this was a pretty good movie.the CG is not too bad.i have seen worse.the look of the creatures(and by creatures i mean the good and the bad snake)was pretty cool.the action scenes involving the snakes was really good,i thought.there are some lapses in logic at times,and the story doesn't always make sense.but for a creature feature,there are a lot worse.a lot of the other creatures seemed lifted from other movies,so it's not wholly original.i think the gist of the story is original though.there is a bit of similarity to Godzilla(the Big budget American version)which liked a lot.i didn't like this movie as much,but i still say it was pretty good.i also liked the music.all in all,i think Dragon Wars is about a 7/10",Positive "This movie was kind of interesting...I had to watch it for a college class about India, however the synopsis tells you this movie is about one thing when it doesn't really contain much cold, hard information on those details. It is not really true to the synopsis until the very end where they sloppily try to tie all the elements together. The gore factor is superb, however. Even right at the very beginning, you want to look away because the gore is pretty intense. Only watch this movie if you want to see some cool gore, because the plot is thin and will make you sad that you wasted time listening to it. I've seen rumors on other websites about this movie being based on true events, however you can not find any information about it online...so basically this movie was a waste of time to watch.",Negative "Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.

This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.

The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).

The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.

It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.

If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).",Negative "How unfortunate, to have so many of my ""a"" list, and good ""b"" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled ""The end game"" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move ""a"" list actors to the ""b"" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.",Negative "BABY FACE is a fast paced, wise cracking, knowing smirk of a film that

lasts only an hour and 15 minutes, but oh what a smart 75 minutes they

are! That a story that covers so much ground could be told in such a

short time puts most of today's movie makers to shame. Screenwriters of

today should study the economy of BABY FACE and cut the bloat that

overwhelms so many of their films.

The story is no nonsense. An amoral woman rises to wealth first under,

and then over the bodies of the men who fall madly in love with her.

Sure the production code loused it up with a redeeming, happy ending,

but it isn't hard to see in which the direction the writers wanted to

go, so enjoy what's there and use your imagination for the rest. Stanwyck is terrific as is George Brent and Douglass Dumbvrille as a

hapless suitor. Not a great film but certainly an enjoyable one. If

you've never seen BABY FACE catch it the next time it's shown on cable

or rent the cassette. It's worth the effort..",Positive "The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).",Negative "Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is ""Simone"") that deserves the title ""the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year"". So, what´s going on, Al?",Negative "The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance.",Negative "First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.

Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.

I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable ""gore,"" made this movie truly awful.

There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even ""b-rate"" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.

I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed.",Negative "Lorna Green(Janine Reynaud)is a performance artist for wealthy intellectuals at a local club. She falls prey to her fantasies as the promise of romantic interludes turn into murder as she kills those who believe that sex is on the horizon. It's quite possible that, through a form of hypnotic suggestion, someone(..a possible task master pulling her strings like a puppet)is guiding Lorna into killing those she comes across in secluded places just when it appears that love-making is about to begin. After the murders within her fantasies are committed, Lorna awakens bewildered, often clueless as to if what she was privy to within her dreams ever took place in reality.

If someone asked me how to describe this particular work from Franco, I'd say it's elegant & difficult. By now, you've probably read other user comments befuddled by what this film is about, since a large portion of it takes place within the surreal atmosphere of a dream. Franco mentioned in an interview that he was heavily influenced by Godard early in his career, as far as film-making style, and so deciding to abandon a clear narrative structure in favor of trying to create a whole different type of viewing experience. And, as you read from the reaction of the user comments here..some like this decision, others find the style labouring, dull, and bewildering. I'll be the first to admit that the film is over my head, but even Franco himself, when quizzed by critics who watched ""Succubus"", admitted that he didn't even understand the film and he directed it! Some might say that ""Succubus"" was merely a precursor to his more admired work, ""Venus in Furs"", considered his masterwork by Franco-faithful, because it also adopts the surreal, dreamlike structure where the protagonist doesn't truly know whether he/she is experiencing something real or imagined. In a sense, like the protagonist, we are experiencing the same type of confusion..certainly, ""Succubus"" is unconventional film-making where we aren't given the keys to what is exactly going on. And, a great deal of the elusive dialogue doesn't help matters. ""Succubus"" is also populated by beatnik types and ""poet-speak"", Corman's film, ""A Bucket of Blood"" poked fun at. My personal favorite scene teases at a possible lesbian interlude between Lorna and a woman she meets at a posh party..quite a bizarre fantasy sequence where mannequins are used rather unusually. Great locations and jazz score..I liked this film myself, although I can understand why it does receive a negative reaction. Loved that one scene at the posh party with Lorna, a wee bit drunk, writhing on the floor in a gorgeous evening gown as others attending the shindig(..equally wasted)rush her in an embrace of kisses.",Positive "I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.",Negative "Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.

I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.

Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.

1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.

Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?

John Ulmer",Negative "This is the best movie I've ever seen!

Maybe it's because I live just a few miles from the village were the story take place, and I know how things work out in this area in Sweden. The movie tells the truth, believe me! It both criticizes and honors the lifestyle of Dalarna, and the producer wants people who watch the movie to be more opened minded and care more for your closest friends and relatives.

But if you live in another small village anywhere in Sweden (or another country) you will probably also recognize much from this movie.

Thank you Maria Blom!",Positive "Another fun, witty, frothy RKO musical with Astaire and Rogers, FOLLOW THE FLEET is a charming film. While it lacks the stand-out great tunes of SWNG TIME (although the final number ""Face the music and dance"" is one of the team's best and rightfully so), it is hugely enjoyable, as these two could virtually do no wrong together in the 1930's. Once again, the plot is lightweight and forgettable, but watching Fred and Ginger dance together is sheer heaven. These two conveyed more romance and magic in dance than many couples in films do in a huge love scene. While there are better Fred and Ginger musicals, this is certainly a must-see.",Positive Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.

RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.,Negative "A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.

Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from ""Terror Firmer""; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for ""the Rowdy Girls"", ""Teenage Catgirls in Heat"", ""Cannible: The Musical"", and ""Toxic Avenger 4""

My Grade: D",Negative "This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and ""is"" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess.",Negative "Purple Rain is so cool for the dad. We Are Tracking 921 callers from Minneapolis. Hudson Horstachio prepares to ride a motorcycle , take a ride with Franklin Fizzlybear in the caddy. Let's go back to 1984 , it was a movie released and Prince tripped into stardom. You would think Hudson Horstachio will be a superstar for his new movie in 20th Century Fox Movie called ""VP : Purple Rain"" , starring Hudson Horstachio (voiced by Dan Green , who played Max's Dad , the Pokemon gym leader). 9 Tracks. Tina Turner's Private Dancer and Billy Ocean's Suddenly was headed for the album as Prince held more concerts. It is time we've pulled the plug on the 1984 movies. Our 20th Century Fox Fans are not watching anymore. The Kid yells out ""Look Out For The Deer!"" is such a danger in mind , Ralph Schuckett will be composing and conducting the new movie called ""VP : Purple Rain"" released on video. Tom Cruise jumps into his motorcycle , Brad Pitt jumps into his motorcycle and Hudson Horstachio jumps into his motorcycle. Thanks to Bette Midler from Beaches and the keyboardists. You Are Beholding The Heroic Horstachio , Hudson! Bart is writing ""I shall not watch Purple Rain"" on the chalkboard , Go On The Bloomington Ferry Bridge and enjoy The Kid's festivities. Hudson Horstachio is watching you!",Positive "Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.

3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.

And then there's the twist ending. The ""expected"" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.

If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the ""WOW, that's what it was all this time"" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.",Negative "This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.",Negative "In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the ""too-proper"" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.",Negative "Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy!",Positive "This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including ""furniture""--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed!

Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound.",Positive "I'm going to go on the record as the second person who has, after years of using the IMDb to look up movies, been motivated by Nacho's film, The Abandoned to create an account and post a comment. This was hands down the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. The plot was on the verge of non-existence, and none of the ""puzzle-pieces"" added up in any way whatsoever. The acting was laughable and the writing was embarrassing. How this film got backed and came to be is completely beyond me. The only saving grace I could find was Anastasia Hille's cunning and repetitive use of the f word. (and brilliant sound design) If I were faced with the option of seeing this film again or being mauled by wild bores I would be up against a difficult decision. I'm disappointed that I am unable to give it 0 stars.",Negative "Why watch this? There is only one reason and that is for the greatness of John Saxon. I love his acting. My most favorite appearances by him are in Nightmare On Elm Street 1,3, and 7 as Nancy's father a cop, Black Christmas as a cop, and From Dusk Till Dawn again as a cop. When I was rummaging through my local mall video outlet I came across the film Zombie Death House and I quickly tossed it back but before moving on I noticed that John Saxon was not only an actor in this film but for the first time that I have ever heard of a director. This intrigued me (Also the cheap $9.00 price tag) and I and I had to have it. Upon coming home I realized that this film did not live up to Saxon's other work even his acting, which may have been muddled by the added pressures of directing. But it was not just him the other actors sucked too. It seemed as if they had all been pulled out of a recent porno shoot and told now guys you really have to act. The film even looks of 80's porn quality. I cannot in good faith recommend this film to casual viewers, but if you are an obsessed fan of the 80's who missed out on the culture that came from that era by being born to late, or a fan of crap films than this one is for. Also if you dig John Saxon as I do.",Negative "Watching Fire and Ice for the first time reminded me of my experience seeing 300 last year. It wasn't at all a bad movie, certainly not average, but its plotting and dialog stuck out as being at best conventional and at worst kind of confusing and one-dimensional (which, perhaps as based on Frank Miller's comic book, was the right decision to go with). But its primary strengths drew from the intense action and bloody battles and having that jolt of a 14 year old feeling watching beefcake men fighting in bloody sword-led combat, with the occasional freaky creature or super-hot female to go with the painterly surroundings. While I would probably re-watch Fire and Ice before 300 again, they both aroused that similar feeling - the exception this time being, naturally, that it's Frank Frazetta, the infamous artist and designer of countless paperback books and comics, collaborating with director Ralph Bakshi, in what isn't typical Hollywood fare but something for the die-hard fans.

What this means for audiences today going back to check out the film for the first time (it may now be coveted nostalgia for those who were young and watched it along with their Masters of the Universe VHS tapes back in the day) is the possible cons mentioned before and, maybe, that you will see something somewhat unique. Fire and Ice isn't even the only Bakshi rotoscoped feature, but it's possibly the most fluid- if not quite my personal favorite- of the few he made, and he and his team create a whole striking world that's part pre-historic, part out-of-this-world fantastic, and part medieval, and all touched up with a painters hand with respect to the backgrounds, the skies and grounds. There's a slight drawback for Bakshi fans in this facet of character design; Bakshi went as far as to say it's more Frazetta than him. This may be true, but it doesn't make it any more absorbing to the eye or curious in those moments where we don't see people killed or gutted in quick or slow motion (my favorite was the momentary skeleton-guide- how they rotoscoped that amazes me).

I neglect describing the plot as it would defeat the purpose of really recommending it. If you're already a die-hard into this kind of style and approach of animation the plot will matter depending on what degree two warring factions or a 'damsel' or princess is in danger or a hero has to prove himself or yada yada, so suffice to say it's about, well, Fire against Ice, with characters named Nekron and Darkwolf (the coolest male of the lot and most comic-book in appearance) and Teegra (the typical hottie who's almost *too* perfect for the adolescent male fantasy figure). What the plot does do, as an asset, is allow a series of cliffhangers and suspense bits around the action, the progression of the danger in the oncoming big battle, like when the ogres are hunting after Teegra and have to contend with sudden crazy monsters and creatures popping out of tree trunks and lakes. And per usual for Bakshi, he conjures up some craziness (if not quite his usual inspired lunacy) in the midst of all of this straightforward fantasy material. If you've seen Wizards, you'll understand what I mean to a lesser extent.

So, if you're an animation buff, seek this out right away for some 'old-school' (i.e. 1980s) action and incredible design. For everyone else, it's... good, not great, as I would say without fault about its logical 21st century extension, with some alterations, 300.",Positive "This Film was really eye-opening. I have seen this film several times. First, when I was four and I actually remembered it and then when I was 12. The whole message that the director is conveying is for everyone to wake up and not make the mistake of leaving God out of our everyday lives or just Plain going the extra mile to insult him.

A great Movie for Non-believers and Believers alike!",Positive "I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.",Positive "Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended.",Positive "Soylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.

I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.

I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.

The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie...",Positive "My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.",Positive "My very favorite character in films, but in nearly all of them the character of Zorro has a small bit of cloth as a mask and if the villain`s can`t tell who is under that cloth then they are daft.

But in Reed Hadley`s ""Zorro`s Fighting Legion"" (serial 1939) the mask fills his whole face making it a real mystery as to who Zorro really is.

But anyway Zorro is one of the best character`s in films and to bring it up to date l think Anthony Hopkins in ""The Mask of Zorro"" (1998) is a delight.

My interest in films is vast, but l have a real liking for the serial`s of the 30s/40s....

Bond2a",Positive "This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.

Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.

While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.

Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.

Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.",Negative "You gotta wonder how some flics ever get made... this one decided to skip with the why among many other things and just wanders off beyond the moot.

And yet you have a number of decent actors doing their best to pump some life into the story. The blue tint throughout the movie overshoots into 'yet again', which on its own would be depressing but here it's overkill. The idea that it's not a medical condition, not some house or gypsy or trinket curse but just something that for no apparent reason starts to happen to our protagonist and then to everyone else around her, just winds up being much like taking a big swig out of an empty mug. Some doppelgangers have super powers but others don't or don't know they do? It seems they're just as clueless as we are.

It's a poor man's rip-off of ""Invasion of the Body-Snatchers"" with Keifer Sutherland's ""Mirror"" and ""The Sixth Sense"", were you to seriously botch those three together.",Negative "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½*

Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence)

By Blake French:

Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy ""MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS"" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said.

This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny.

How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in ""Air Bud: Golden Receiver,"" and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least ""Air Bud"" was family oriented. ""Major League Back to the Minors"" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?

The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own ""buddy comedy routine"" muttering one liners to themselves like ""They suck,"" ""This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass,"" ""This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind,"" ""Somebody needs a nap,"" and ""ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play."" Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.

""Major League Back to the minors"" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: ""You're too old, too slow, and too fat."" The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money.

So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.

",Negative "This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.

EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.

INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.

STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.

ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.

With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.

4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.",Negative "There is absolutely no plot in this movie ...no character development...no climax...nothing. But has a few good fighting scenes that are actually pretty good. So there you go...as a movie overall is pretty bad, but if you like a brainless flick that offer nothing but just good action scene then watch this movie. Do not expect nothing more that just that.Decent acting and a not so bad direction..A couple of cameos from Kimbo and Carano...I was looking to see Carano a little bit more in this movie..she is a good fighter and a really hot girl.... White is a great martial artist and a decent actor. I really hope he can land a better movie in the future so we can really enjoy his art..Imagine a film with White and Jaa together...that would be awesome",Negative "This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the ""game"" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - ""backstabbed"" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, ""Do you love your old man?"" and never, ""Do you love me?"" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.",Positive "I watched the McCoys reunion and was glad to see Richard Crenna and Kathleen Nolan and Tony Martinez!!!To see them now was wonderful, because I always watched the show growing up so when the TV said that there was going to be a reunion I was so excited !!!! The only thing I could not figure out is why Lydia Reed (Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman(little Luke) was not on there.I know that Walter Brennan had died. So I got on my computer and tried to find out about them and found this site so if there is anyone out there that can tell me what ever happened to Lydia Reed( Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman (little Luke I would be thankful!!! I have searched everywere and no luck .The only thing I could find out about Michael Winkelman is he was supposed to be born in 1946. This show had value and morals each show gave a lesson to be learned.The shows today dont have that.The whole cast was incredable the only thing better than finding out obout them would be to meet them So since that is impossible if there is anyone that can help please do!!! Thank You Glenda",Positive "My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.

I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.

The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.

This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!",Negative "The title overstates the content of this movie somewhat, which might lead to some unrealized expectations. Frankly speaking, there's very little ""panic in the streets"" to be seen here. In fact, throughout the movie very few people actually know that there's a murderer on the loose who may well be spreading the plague to everyone and anyone he encounters. Having said that, what we do have here is a very well done story with a level of suspense that starts out reasonably high anyway (because, unlike the people ""in the streets"", the viewer knows what's going on) and that director Elia Kazan builds very deliberately. As the plague-infected killer is sought, one of the more interesting sidebars I found was the developing relationship between Dr. Reed (Richard Widmark) and Police Captain Warren (Paul Douglas). At the beginning, the two really don't like each other, even though they have to work together. By the end, they've forged a real bond of respect for each other. Kazan did a good job with that.

Pretty much all the performances here were excellent. Widmark and Douglas were great, and I was quite taken with a very early look at Jack Palance playing what would become his typical ""heavy"" role. I found very little to criticize here. Perhaps Barbara Bel Geddes came across as a little bit flat as Reed's wife Nancy, but her role wasn't really central to the story. All in all, an excellent piece of work. 9/10",Positive "SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.",Positive "Everyday we can watch a great number of film, soap... on tv. Sometimes a miracle happens. A great film, with real feelings, with great actors, with a great realisator-director. For me there are two films that everyone needs to see : the first is the Pacula ? ""Sophie 's choice"" with Meryl Streep. The second is ""Journey of Hope"". As human beings, we need to learn about humility, about love of the others, about acceptation of other civilisation, other way of living. We also have to struggle against racism and fascim. We must avoid judging, criticize; we only have to love our earth companion. This wonderful film, helps us reaching John (Lennon) his dream : Imagine all the people living live in peace. These two films are difficult to see : watch these, but sure you will be hurt, but better. Great film, great actors, terrible story, pain and cry guarantee, but also better understanding of the others. Enjoy it.",Positive "1/10 and that's only because I don't go lower with my ratings.

skip this ""movie"" and wait for the last movie of the ""Trilogy"", don't buy or rent it. trust me you won't be missing a thing. the Architect brings no new info: _(spoiler)_ there have been more NEO's before him, he's like nr.6 or something. you could already figure something like that out from the first movie: Agent Smith telling us the first Matrix created didn't work because it was too perfect. Trinity died and Neo's ""love"" brought her back, where have I seen this before ? Oh right in the first movie the roles where reversed ! same as the action-scenes nothing new just with more opponents. the Action-scene (the 20+ ships) in the BIG battle which we didn't see (maybe in Revolutions ?), betrayed by someone (hmmmm, maybe the guy holding the knife who wanted to stab Neo?!) who pushed the EGM-button to soon.

all in all a shameless ploy to make money (especially off the guys who went to see it more then once), which evidently worked like a charm.",Negative "The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look.",Positive "I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new ""Dukes"" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)""You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is."" Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was ""HAZZARD."" Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.",Negative "Everyone in a while, Disney makes one of thoes movies that surprises everyone. One that keeps you wondering until the very end. In the tradition of Pirates of the Caribbean, this movie is sure to turn into a ghost, and kill and rape your village. It's terrible. If you want a mindless, senseless, predictable ""action"" movie, go right ahead. I believe that young kids might enjoy this, as they like it when Good ALWAYS wins. But me, I like movies where it's a toss up who's going to win. This movie never lets the Bad Guys have the upper hand. By the end, when th heroes are left in an ""inescapeable"" pit, you just KNOW that they can get out. Everything works out perfect for Cage and his friends, he never has to think over a riddle or clue for more than 10 seconds, no matter how complex it is. See this movie if you want to see some impressive set designs, not if you want to see good acting, or a good film. Go watch a superman movie, it would be much shorter, and the kids would like it more. For instance, the scene where Cage is fleeing from armed gunmen, and the bullets are all deflected by a the railing of a fire escape. (And I'm not talking about a fence or anything, just ONE LITTLE POLE) This movie shows the decay of films and the film industry to cheap gags and dull, unrealistic action, which this movie provides in huge quantities.",Negative "I have to start saying it has been a long time since I have seen it, but have seen it 5 or more times; a wonderful little romp that was clearly inspired by the musical/comedy pairings of new or fading stars with musical groups of prominence. Kay Kyser's mysteries would be a good example.

Having Spike Jones unleashed is the best part of the show, as he and his band play many tunes and are a part of the action, doing a fine job of support. Hugh O'Brien plays the face, Buddy Hackett the part rumor has it that was offered to Lou Costello and thus, Abbott and Costello replacing the leads. Don't know if that was true.

all in all, a pleasant movie, but important to have that much Spike Jones and his band on film for history. Wish that it was released, as I haven't seen or heard of it now in two decades. Hope it is not lost",Positive "The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was ""Stay inside the ring"". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.",Positive "Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.

The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.

But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.

I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.",Negative This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.,Positive "This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.",Negative "While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.

My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.

I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.",Negative "In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : ""getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut"".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.",Negative "Judy Davis shows us here why she is one of Australia's most respected and loved actors - her portrayal of a lonely, directionless nomad is first-rate. A teenaged Claudia Karvan also gives us a glimpse of what would make her one of this country's most popular actors in years to come, with future roles in THE BIG STEAL, THE HEARTBREAK KID, DATING THE ENEMY, RISK and the acclaimed TV series THE SECRET LIFE OF US. (Incidentally, Karvan, as a child, was a young girl whose toy Panda was stolen outside a chemist's shop in the 1983 drama GOING DOWN with Tracey Mann.) If this films comes your way, make sure you see it!! Rating: 79/100. See also: HOTEL SORRENTO, RADIANCE, VACANT POSSESSION, LANTANA.",Positive "As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.

Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream ""hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!"". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.",Negative "Let's face it: the final season (#8) was one of the worst seasons in any show I've ever enjoyed (mostly, I've never found dry spells to last a whole season). But if you judge this show by the last season, of course it's going to come across as inferior. That is an entirely unfair assessment-- because ""That '70s Show"" was, in its day, a brilliant and hilarious sitcom about a bygone era and how the people who lived there weren't so different than we are here in modern times.

All right... ignoring Season 8.

Topher Grace stars as Eric Forman, a horny geek of a teenager with a perpetual love of Donna (Laura Prepon), the feminist girl next door. Playing their friends, Danny Masterson (Hyde), Mila Kunis (Jackie), Wilmer Valderrama (Fez) and even Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) give fantastic performances in (almost) every episode. The best one is probably Fez, a foreign exchange student who is as mentally promiscuous as they get. What country is he from? Try to figure it out! For another dimension of entertainment, Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith are phenomenal as Eric's parents. Rupp, as Kitty, is both formidable and sweet, sort of like Mrs. Brady meets Marie Barone, while Smith's Red exists mainly to scare the pogees out of everyone. Don Stark and Tanya Roberts play very well opposite each other as Donna's parents, the chauvinistic but likable Bob and the airheaded Midge. Tommy Chong has occasional appearances as Leo, a stoner who acts as a father figure to Hyde.

Apart from the anachronistic errors that pop up quite frequently and the over-the-top lessons that sometimes come (and that deplorable final season), ""'70s"" is a terrific show with amazing writing, spot-on direction, and a feel-good vibe pulsing through every episode. They're all alright.",Positive "Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.

I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.

If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.

I was actually shouting at the telly "" they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first "", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.

If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid.",Negative """The Man in the Moon"" is a beautifully realistic look at life through the eyes of an adolescent. Director Robert Mulligan magically re-creates screenwriter Jenny Wingfield's autobiography of her childhood with gorgeous cinematography and a haunting, lyrical musical score. This film hits home as one of the most powerful and emotionally affecting films in recent times.

This film is incredible, all the acting first rate, especially Sam Waterston and an astonishing performance by Reese Witherspoon in her film debut. You will feel every emotion as this life changing summer in 1957 on the Trant family farm comes to a conclusion.

""The Man in the Moon"" was a limited release in 1991, and you will love the fact that most of you're family and friends will probably have never heard of it. Buy this dvd and enjoy 100 minutes of pure poetic art. This film is truely the essence of filmaking at its finest.",Positive "This movie is utterly hilarious. Its cast clicks immediately with frame one and takes us on a wonderful ride through spoofing gangster films. The conflict of brother vs. brother appears when Johnny's brother becomes a do-gooder D.A. However, the best character is Johnny's crimelord rival, the overly accented Moroni. As Johnny says ""That man should be arrested for butchering the English language.""

Check it out on video. It's worth a look.",Positive "PRC which was the lowest of the low actually struck gold with this moody little thriller. They did the same thing a year earlier with ""Detour"" which is probably one of the finest low-budget films ever made.

""Strangler"" is basically a one set film, filled with mist and shadows, a technique used by most poverty row studios to hide the sets, or lack thereof. But here, it works well. The ghost of Charles Middleton (better known as Ming the Merciless) lurches around the swamp killing those involved in his wrongful execution for murder and generates some sympathy from the viewer. His final victim is to be the daughter of the ferryman.....he concentrates his wrath not only on those directly involved in his fate but their relatives as well.

Rosemary LaPlanche does her usual imitation of someone in a coma that passes for her acting style. She offers herself up to the strangler in order to put a stop to the killing but as a sop to the audience, the strangler sees the goodness of her gesture as a sign that his mission is complete and he returns to the hereafter, somewhat chastened. If Ulmer(who directed ""Detour"") has directed ""Strangler"" she would be hanging from the nearest tree and the strangler's job would be done. But who's complaining? It's not the story that is the major attraction but the shrouded sets, lighting and the general moodiness of the piece. It stands, right behind ""Detour"", as PRC's finest hour",Positive "A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.

A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.

The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.

This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.",Negative "One of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this?",Negative "I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though.",Positive "Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10",Positive "After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, ""how much time does this have left?"" Checked. ""One minute?! What the hell?!"" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!

Nick Houston",Positive "The most interesting thing about Miryang (Secret Sunshine) is the actors. Jeon Do-yeon, as Lee Shin-ae, the main character, is a woman with a young son whose husband has died in a tragic accident, and who leaves Seoul to live in Miryang, which was his home town, with her young son. Jeon's face is very changeable. She is girlish, flirtatious, elegant, aged and sad, desperate and joyous, with it and terribly isolated by turns, and it's all in her face. The film also stars Song Kang-ho as Kim, a man who meets her when her car breaks down coming into Miryang, who happens to run a garage in town, and who follows her around all the time thereafter, despite her apparent lack of interest in his attentions. Song is the biggest star in Korea right now, renowned for his work with Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance; Memories of Murder and The Host). And yet here he plays a throwaway character, almost a forgotten man. But of course he makes him interesting and curiously appealing. He is the essential ballast to keep Jeon's character from floating away.

Lee Shin-ae is a piano teacher. She comes to the new town, which is a neutral place, a kind of poor-man's Seoul, a town ""just like anywhere else,"" as Kim says (just as he is in a way just like anyone else). Her little boy is sprightly, as little boys are, but plainly damaged and withdrawn at times too. His father used to snore, and when he misses him he lies awake, pretending to snore. He goes to school, and Shin-ae meets parents and students and shopkeepers. There is a sense of place in the film, even though the place is in a sense ""anywhere."" People speak in the local dialect, and everyone knows everything, and Shin-ae's Seoul origin is immediately noticed. Is life really harsher here, away from the big city and its sophistication? Shin-ae seems not to realize the danger she is in.

Something terrible happens. And Shin-ae doesn't necessarily deal with it in the best possible way. But it happens and she must face the consequences. But she can't. She goes to pieces. A perpetrator is caught, but that's no consolation. Eventually she becomes so despairing, she relents and goes to a born-again Christian meeting an acquaintance has been pressing her to attend. She finds peace and release with this. But when she decides not only to forgive the perpetrator but to go to the prison to tell him so, that experience is full of ironies and it destroys her all over again. She becomes embittered and desperate and she no longer finds solace in religion. And it gets worse than that.

Jeon Do-yeon gives her all in this extremely demanding and protean role. Lee Chang-dong may be a very good director. If an actor of the stature of Song Kang-ho expresses enormous admiration for him, that is convincing. According to Scott Foundas of LA Weekly, Lee's first three films, Green Fish (1997), Peppermint Candy (2000) and Oasis (2002) have marked him out as ""one of the leading figures of his country's recent cinematic renaissance."" But this is not as successful a film as those of other Korean directors whose work I've seen, such as Yong Sang-Soo, Bong Joon-ho, and the prodigiously, almost perversely gifted Park Chan-wook. It may indeed begin as Foundas says as a kind of ""Asiatic Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore"" and then ""abruptly and without warning"" turns into ""something of a thriller, and some time after that a nearly Bressonian study in human suffering."" But that progression not only seems random and indigestible; the film sags and loses its momentum toward the end and then simply fizzles out, with no sense of an ending. There are also weaknesses in the action. Shin-ae takes foolish chances with her son, and makes bad choices all along. If she is destined for madness like Betty in Jean-Jacques Beineix's Betty Blue, which might explain her peculiar and mistaken choices, that isn't something that is properly developed. This is an interesting film, certainly a disturbing one, but one that leaves one doubtful and dissatisfied, after putting one through an emotional wringer.

An official selection of the New York Film Festival presented at Lincoln Center, 2007—an event that has done right by Korean filmmakers in the recent past.",Positive "Becky Harris plays the female shopper whose misfortune it is to be in the store at the wrong time and obviously ONLY purpose to be in this film is to supply a reason to wear out remote controls! Miss Harris seems to me to be in her fifties or older when she first comes on the scene. Once the red haired thug is done with her it becomes apparent that this is no AARP queen. If these are not some of the finest assets ever displayed on celluloid, I want someone to clue me in. Absolutely breathtaking in my opinion and I literally wore out my VHS copy capturing her charms. I would like to know if this movie is available on DVD.

The rest of this movie really is not worthy of mention. I was hoping to see something fairly convincing and intelligent, however I was disappointed on both counts. God Bless Becky Harris!",Negative "I've seen this movie when I was young, and I remembered it as one of the first films I have truly liked that was not an action movie or a comedy. So, in my later years I decided to watch it again and see if it was just nostalgia or was there really something in that movie. To my surprise, the movie held to my every expectations. It's a great movie. Emotional in the right amount, some jokes, nice songs (not great though, and that actually explains why I did not remember it was a musical) and all in all a great use to my time. I was surprised because the last movies from my childhood that I have revisited did not even pass my minimal demands of a decent movie and yet this movie, which I first saw in the second grade, made me cry today just like it made me cry then. Maybe that's because my dog died recently and maybe not, but the important thing is that it made me feel, and that's why filmmakers make films (that and the money, of course). Yes, there are continuity glitches. Yes, the script has holes, but it doesn't matter. The movie itself is fun and smart. So don't be fooled by cynical people who always look for the bad things in life, because nothing is perfect, and this movie gets a 10 not because it is perfect. It gets 10 simply because it made me feel.",Positive "Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

""Murder By Numbers"" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...",Negative "To some, this Biblical film is a story of judgment and condemnation... Others see it as a story of grace, restoration, and hope... It is actually both – Henry King illustrates the portrait of a mighty monarch almost destroyed by his passion, his downward spiral of sin, and his upward climb of healing..

'David and Bathsheba' is an emotional movie full of vividly memorable characters who attain mythic status while retaining their humanity... Henry King handles the powerful story, taken from the Old Testament, with skill...

David, 'the lion of Judah,' having stormed the walls of Rabgah, saves the life of one of his faithful warriors Uriah (Kieron Moore), and returns to Jerusalem...

Back at his court, his first wife complains of neglect, and offends him for being a shepherd's son, distinguishing herself for being the daughter of King Saul...

One evening, and while walking on the terrace of his palace which evidently held a commanding view of the neighborhood, David's eyes happened to alight upon a young lady who was taking a refreshing bath... She was beautiful and attractive... David could not take his eyes off her... He finds out later on that she was the wife of one of his officers...

Sending for her, he discovers that she, too, is unhappy in her marriage... By this point, it's apparent that David's intentions shift from an interest in taking Bathsheba as a wife, to just plain taking Bathsheba... As usual, sin had its consequences, and David hadn't planned on that possibility...

When a drought sweeps the land and there is a threat of famine, David suspects that the Lord is punishing him and his people for his sin... But when Bathsheba tells him that she is pregnant and fears that she may be stoned to death according to the law of Moses, David tries to cover up his sin...

He sends word to Joab, the commander of his army, and ordered him to send to him Bathsheba's husband... David did something that was abominable in God's sight... He sends the man to the front line where he would be killed...

The soldier is indeed killed and with him out of the way, David marries his beloved Bathsheba in full regal splendor...

God punishes the couple when Bathsheba's child dies soon after birth... Meanwhile, a mighty famine has spread throughout the land and the Israelites - led by Nathan - blame the King for their plight... They storm the palace and demand that Bathsheba pays for her sin...

Peck plays the compassionate king whose lustful desire outweighed his good sense and integrity..

Hayward as Bathsheba, is a sensitive woman who begins to believe that every disaster occurring in her life is the direct result of her adultery... The sequence of her bath which could have been a great moment in Biblical film history, is badly mishandled, and the viewers eyes are led briefly to Hayward's face and shoulders...

Raymond Massey appeared as Nathan the Prophet, sent by God to rebuke David after his adultery with Bathsheba; Gwyneth Verdon is Queen Michal who tries to resist the ambition and greed that have become integral to David's personality and kingship; ex-silent screen idol, Francis X. Bushman, had a brief part as King Saul...

The best moments of the film were: The Ark en route to its permanent home when God breaks a young soldier who tries to touch the sacred object; the defining moment in David's life when he confesses his sin and is prepared to accept his punishment of death; and for the film's climax, inserting it as a flashback, David remembering his fight with the giant Goliath...

With superb color photography and a masterly music score, 'David and Bathsheba' won Oscar nominations in the following categories: Music Scoring, Art and Set Direction, Cinematography, Story and Screenplay, and Costume Design..",Positive "Just like Final Fantasy brought CG to a whole new level, this is a rebirth for motion capture. Neither movie nor cartoon, this motion picture looks like a homage to the Film Noir, Akira, Sin City, Blade Runner and the new generation of European cartoonists. You see Paris the way it almost could be, the characters seem as real as you and I. They blink, trip, shiver like real actors in a way never achieved before.

Don't go watch it hoping to find a mind twister. You will most likely figure it out before you're half way from the movie. The scenario is certainly too simplistic compared to famous thrillers, but this definitely is bliss for the eyes.",Positive "AG was an excellent presentation of drama, suspense and thriller that is so rare to American TV. Sheriff Lucas gave many a viewer the willies. We rooted for Caleb as he strove to resist the overtures of Sheriff Lucas. We became engrossed and fearful upon learning of the unthinkable connection between these two characters. The manipulations which weekly gave cause to fear what Lucas would do next were truly surprising. This show lived up to the ""Gothic"" moniker in ways American entertainment has so seldom attempted, much less mastered. The suits definitely made a big mistake in not supporting this show. This show puts shame to the current glut of ""reality"" shows- which are so less than satisfying viewing.The call for a DVD box set is well based. This show is quality viewing for a discerning market hungry for quality viewing. A public that is tiring of over-saturation of mind-numbing reality fare will welcome this gem of real storytelling. Bring on the DVD box set!!",Positive "Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto ""Che"" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.

If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED ""digital high performance cine camera"" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.

The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two ""films,"" and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.

This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.

It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.",Positive "My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.

I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see.

I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment.

The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.

I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying ""I love you, mommy"" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.",Negative "this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.

I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).

Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!",Positive "this film is terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.

In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.

having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).",Negative "I first saw Martin's Day when I was just 10 years old, at home, on The Movie Channel, and still remember the impact it made on my life. It touched me as no other film had touched me, and I remember balling my eyes out.

After the first time I saw it, I couldn't find it anywhere else. I would ask around and no one had ever heard of the film! I guess it was one of those more rare films that not many people knew about, because no one, and I mean no one, knew what I was talking about. I searched and searched throughout the years, checking video stores shelves and scanning cable TV listings, but always came up short. Finally, in 1996 I found out I could special order it, I did, and have probably watched it at least 50 times since--and it still makes me cry, every time.

Martin's Day is about Martin Steckert, a man who is in prison (but genuinely a good guy), who yearns to make it back to the special lake where he grew up as boy. This was a special place, where he lived off nature, spent time with his dog, and was left alone to enjoy life. Soon into the movie, he escapes and starts making his way back to the lake.

It isn't long before the cops find him, and Steckert grabs a child as a hostage to convince the police to back off. Soon Steckert and his hostage (the 2nd Martin) become best friends, and have many fun adventures together--from robbing a toy truck, to hi-jacking a train, all on the way to this special lake.

Throughout the movie, Steckert has great flashbacks of him at the lake as a boy.

I won't ruin the ending for you, but I will tell you, this movie is a must see. It is the BEST movie I have EVER seen in my life! I am, without a doubt, the biggest fan of this movie EVER! I managed to find the song that the two Martin's are singing throughout the movie (""I'm going back, to where I come from...). I'm even planning a trip to Canada to see the lake and cottage where Martin's Day was filmed. Crazy, I know--but that movie just means so much to me.",Positive "After a series of power-outages on a remote island zoo, genetically engineered sabertooth tigers are on the loose and mauling residents of the island. Man, the sci-fi channel has made some bad ""original"" movies, but I think this might possibly be their worst so far! This badly written and directed ""Jurassic Park"" rip-off offers all the usual clichés (mad scientists who thinks people killed by the monsters are ""expendable losses"", characters walking down long dark hallways alone, brain-dead teen characters who's only function in the film is to die a horrible death, etc.), and, unsurprisingly, no suspense whatsoever. The special effects are atrocious—the puppet heads in close-ups of the title beasties are bad enough, looking like stiff plush dolls, but the CGI—which makes the computer-generated dinosaurs in ""Walking with Dinosaurs"" look life-like by comparison—are just downright awful. There's some gore, but most of it looks pretty unconvincing. Oh, and the death scene of the scientist at the end is truly one of the worst things I've seen in years. I couldn't even laugh it was so bad!

Don't waste your time, this one is just downright bad.

2/10.

Oh, and here's some interesting trivia for you—this film borrowed music cues from the 2003 sci-fi film ""Alien Hunter"", which was far superior to this piece of crap.",Negative "Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10",Negative "Well, AWFUL is just the first name. This movie is a cliché-ridden piece of junk. A high school comedy setup in a military training camp. I'm sorry I had to give this 1 star which it did not deserve.

THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:

Just about everything is totally forced, unconvincing and unrealistic. The HEPO (military police) will not come to get you if you don't make your appearance, especially not on your wedding day. The actors were pretty embarrassed during this scene, because the scene didn't work as it was so highly unlikely. You can sense it in their voices. Even if they were not such bad actors, they wouldn't have been able to save the scene.

Next the guy has to exercise in his wedding suit. No, there was no time to get him an uniform first. Man, this is great cinematography! I will remember this scene for the rest of my life.

There are also GIRLS in the camp--exciting--one of'em even a model, though not looking that great--and the baddest actress I've ever seen. I doubt in Hollywood they would let her say a single line in a B movie.

Okay girls in the military! Now this is getting fun. The girls are even placed on the same floor, so we can sneak to their room at night! In reality they would be placed in a different building a quarter mile away, separated by two fences with barbed wire.

There are tanks available we can use for a fun ride in our spare time, of which we have plenty. No, the tanks are not locked, and the ignition keys are inserted. No one will notice the engine sounds, especially not at night.

There is a bunch of sex scenes and references and all are below the waste line. We need those so the sexually obsessed Germans will like the movie as well. Switzerland is too small a market for any feature film. Well done!

One sex scene takes place in the kitchen. Surely, none of those facilities are ever locked. The military routines are as sloppy as they can get.

In the end of the brainless flick, the mafia hit men are about the take revenge on the poor guy trying to shoot him! Because he deserted his fiancée! Sure I buy that, the Italians are that way--a jealous bunch (not).

The bad guys attempt to do this in open daylight with two dozen eyewitnesses. Not at night in a dark alley. Again, military training grounds (where there is shooting with live ammo) are open to the public, anyone can freely drive or walk in there. There are no such things as guards or fences.

The deed however is prevented by the good captain timely launching a rocket into the Italians' car. The explosion knocks the hit men and the enraged fiancée off their feet. No one in 40 feet distance is hurt when the car is blown to smithereens. It's a COMEDY, remember.

Okay. It's a comedy, I got that, and I can live with that. No realism needed. Filmmakers can easily get way with this if it is hilariously, side splitting funny, or entertaining, interesting, challenging. Unfortunately it is none of those. It's just embarrassing. A rip-off from brainless American comedies. The latter are at least done professionally, with no amateur actors.

It is pretty boring and predictable, a waste of time and energy, especially to those sitting through the entire movie as I unfortunately did. Yawn.",Negative "You can call it a mystery, perhaps a small thriller, or an intelligent film.

The story takes you through the life of one person who has lost his life and is looking to regain it.

I have to say I was quite surprised that I truly did enjoy this film. It is not usually the genre I care for however the characters quickly became people to me and I wanted to know what they were about and what was going to happen to them.

Just like many french films over English made, we are able to learn much more about the character and the affect of their surroundings on their person. This film is character driven and will not disappoint!",Positive "I own this movie. I bought it for $3.99 at a fairly major video retailer in order to do some ""indie"""" type movie research since I had just finished my own feature and was editing it. Now when I feel down about my skills as a first time director I just sit down with a plate of cookies and Severed. Within minutes I feel great!!!

I hate to down talk another filmmaker so I'll just use constructive criticism. 1. Find good actors. Take the time. It really helps. 2. When shooting video, over light your scenes and darken in the computer later on in post. 3. Closeups are better for Video. 4. When an actor enters a scene, wait a bit before

having them speak so that we know what's going on and who's talking. 5. Never show the back of a door while we wait for someone to come open it. Damn well worth the $3.99

The True Horror would be getting the reviews Severed has here on IMDb. And you have to give these guys credit... they did get distributed.",Negative """A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something.""--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of ""Watch on the Rhine"" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in ""Destination Tokyo"" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in ""The Sound of Music"" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in ""It Happened Here"" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that ""Watch"" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and ""enough"" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody ""dictatorship of the proletariat"" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher ""the Butcher"" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. ""Watch on the Rhine"" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.",Positive "I admit I had no idea what to expect before viewing this highly stylized piece. It could have been the cure for a zombie virus or the common cold for all I knew. It began with great visuals, little snippets to grab your attention and cause your imagination to run wild. As it continued I learned quickly through voice overs what was taking place. A nice little neo noir story that I felt was not a waist of a few minutes of my time. The little clues given to the audience through visuals at the beginning give them a sense of accomplishment as they piece together the plot. Along with a nice twist at the end its a cool package overall. The score, though not bad, gave the film almost a music video feel. It just felt a little dated, not adding anything to further the storyline. Some of the performances felt overly dramatic but fit perfectly with the feel of the overall piece. I walk away from this very satisfied. I was given a lot of information in a short period of time but through great editing and voice-over work it didn't feel rushed or pushed. Great job!",Positive "A critical and financial flop when first release, the critics have turned around and stated that this film ison of the Director's best. A La Ronde like feel to the film quickly develops as the guys from a detective agency (Ben Gazzara, John Ritter and Blaine Novak) persue, fall in and out of love with some of the most quirky and beautiful women seen on film (Audrey Hepburn, Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten and Patti Hansen). Much of the script was ad-libbed or re-written on the day of shooting which gives the film a breezy feel. Ben Gazzara is excellent as the head detective persuing Audrey Hepburn after dropping singer Colleen Camp and seeing cab-driver Patti Hansen on the side. John Ritter ineptly follows Dorothy Stratten and immediately falls in love with her. Blaine Novak has a few girls he is chasing (including Joyce Hyser and Elizabeth Pena). This film has some great performances by a supurb cast. Standouts are Audrey Hepburn (she doesn't have a line in the first half of the film). Ben Gazzara has never been better (and an inspiring choice for a romantic lead) and Colleen Camp has one of her best roles as the manic country singer Christy Miller. She is a delight to watch as she fires off her lines in a rat-a-tat-tat delivery. Highly Recommended! ********* stars!",Positive "First of all for this movie I just have one word: 'wow'. This is probably, one of the best movies that touched me, from it's story to it's performances, so wonderfully played by Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni. I was very impressed with this last one, because he really brought depth to the character, as it was a very hard role. Still, the two of them formed a pair, that surprised me, from the beginning until the end, showing in the way, a friendship filled with love, that develops during the entire day, settled in the movie. The story takes some time to roll, as the introduction of the characters is long, but finally we are compensated with a wonderful tale about love and humanity. If you have the chance, see it, because it's a movie that will stay in your mind for many time. Simply amazing - 9/10.",Positive "I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - ""Seinfeld"". What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of ""humor"", and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, ""the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized"", on the ""Dick Van Dyke Show"", or ""the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory."" In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of ""Friends"" would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.

You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma.",Negative "STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? ""The phone rang. The phone rang again."" How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.

The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.

Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.

NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, ""It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK."" An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.

My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.

I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.",Negative "This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.",Negative """The Thief of Bagdad"" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, ""The Thief of Bagdad"" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!",Positive "The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Review: After a thrilling set of two, we get the final installment. Here's my take:

The Bourne Ultimatum has it all. We have Jason Bourne(Matt Damon) on the coattails of the ones who know everything. He has been running for too long. This time, it ends.

The Bourne Ultimatum has a great plot, awesome writing, fantastic direction, suspense, and some of the best action of the summer. Matt Damon delivers possibly his best performance to date. He has the conviction and swelling desire of the troubled assassin.

There are some intelligent humor here and some fine suspense. The reactions to certain events will have you either laughing(in a good way) or cheering on. (or both) I heard a lot of intelligent laughter in the theater and lots of clapping. The audience was loving it.

The Bourne Ultimatum delivers all in a nicely gift-wrapped package. All of the goods and then some. This is, in my opinion the best movie this summer.

The Last Word: Excellent conclusion. The best of the trilogy. This is how summer movie thrillers should be done. I love the Bourne trilogy.",Positive "I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!!",Positive "Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.

Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!

Best lines in the movie:

Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...

Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.

Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!

LOL!",Positive "I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.",Negative "This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like "" I double-checked everything twice!"" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.",Negative "The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.

But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.

When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.

Don't waste your time.",Negative "I saw ""A Page of Madness"" in a silent film course at Wesleyan University and it haunts me still after 25 years. Truly ahead of its time - perhaps even still - this gem of a film reveals both the frightening and attractive aspects of madness.",Positive "I love this film and it is such a wonderful example of a family jeopardy, a romantic love story, and a very sad story plot. Everything was just so perfect and excellent about this film. It was such a great mixture of actors and actresses and with some laughs and a lot of cries this film deserves to get plenty of awards. With the mention of beautiful scenario, and although I would relate this film to The Notebook and The Family Stone, it was sort of much more cunning, sad, and brilliant than those films. The Evening tells of a love story between an old woman dreaming back to her younger years, and her two daughters stay by her side while she is not well. The story dating back is so strongly told and wonderful I was sitting on the edge of my seat. You really get to know all the characters and by the end, I was wanting to watch it all over again. This is a amazingly sad and vividly acted and plotted movie that is really one of a kind and should be seen by all for how wonderful it really is. All the performances are astonishing and the film captures your attention from the very beginning and never lets go. I loved it, and am so glad that I watched it for it was truly an astonishing film...",Positive "Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.

While ""Hollywood Homicide"" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.

Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.

All in all, ""Hollywood Homicide"" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.",Negative "I am so glad that i got a chance to see this rare little gem of a movie. I saw it at an independent film festival, so don't expect it to come to your town anytime soon. During the film, i noticed about 10 people get up and walk out. Too bad for them (down here in the south, folks don't like having to read subtitles). The movie starts out slow, but is so rich in dialogue that i never felt bored. When the action finally arrives, i found myself glued to the screen as if i were riding a roller coaster.

I also got a big kick of the Chapter Titles appearing before the chapters, especially the ones that introduce the characters as they appear on screen. It reminded me of Zelda (Ocarina of Time) when you face level bosses.

If this is the future of ""video game/comic book"" movies, then i welcome it.",Positive "Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either.",Negative """Everything a great documentary could be""?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .

Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion — just adrenaline. ""Darkon"" isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as ""Darkon"".",Negative "This complete mess of a movie was directed by Bill Rebane, the man partly responsible for the truly infamous anti-classic Monster a-Go Go. As I was nearing the end of The Cold I came to the unbelievable conclusion that this film was in fact even worse than that 60's shocker. The story – such as it is – is about three eccentric millionaires who invite a group of people to their remote mansion to play a series of macabre games. Whoever manages to last the pace and survive to the end will win $1,000,000. It's a very simple plot but Rebane still somehow manages to make proceedings verge on incomprehensible. Things happen. Characters are completely forgotten about. Nothing makes too much sense. And then it ends. Weirdly. I mean what the hell was that ending all about exactly? I guess you are left to draw your own conclusions. Production values and acting are without question of a pornographic movie standard. In truth Pamela Rohleder (Shelly) isn't even that good. She is so unbelievably terrible she's compelling. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about this crap-fest as a whole, it's just a bargain basement rotter.",Negative "It aired on TV yesterday, so I decided to check it out. This was one of the last Bruce Timm/Paul Dini DTV projects related to their old 1992 Batman the Animated Series, after that Jeff Matsuda came along and re-imagined Batman with his new The Batman series, but anyway, the story of this new Batman movie centers around the appearance of a new vigilante known as Batwoman, however Batman feels the need to stop her because of her extreme methods, and also in the meantime take down The Pengiun and Ruphert Thorn who both are secretly working with Carlton Duquesne(who's having family troubles) and another villain(which is later revealed in the movie) on a weapons smuggling operation,they also put a bounty on the Batwoman. The question is: who is this mysterious Batwoman and is it possible that they could be more then one? It's up to Batman to solve this mystery and stop Penguin's latest operation. For an animated movie, it has a fairly complex plot and a serious tone, which is good. Another plus was the complete redesign of the Penguin who looks much more like the sophisticated Mob Boss we're used to seeing in the comics, unlike his previous designs that borrowed elements from Tim Burton vision of Pengium(sewer rat and circus freak). Even though the movie contains a love subplot it's never carried that far and doesn't derail the movie like say, Batman Forever. The voice acting is standard quality for these direct-to-video projects(if only Batman: Mask of Phantasm took this route), Kevin Conroy still shines as Batman/Bruce Wayne. And like I said despite running for some very short 80 minutes, it manages to make a pretty good(and complex) storyline complete with a few minor twists and bucket loads of action. There are a few downsides, however, Nightwing is nowhere to be seen, and I'm sure Barbara Gordon and Bruce Wayne don't click as a couple, even though is just referenced, Tim Drake(aka Robin) does very little in the movie and to be quite frank, I was never a big fan of Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman character design(especially in their Batman shows post-BTAS), this The New Adventures of Batman and Robin, well, it kinda makes Batman look fat then rather a well-built bulked up individual(kinda like the Jeff Matsuda character model from The Batman). Bruce Wayne seems a bit awkward, those blue eyes make him look more like Clark Kent then Bruce(though it's true they do look very much alike). Another downside is Rupert Throne(no explanation as to why he is in this deal, but it's safe to say he's has goons and what's a cut of the deal) which does very little more then hang out with the Penguim or get himself hurt every time he points a gun at someone(count how many times this happens in the movie and you'll be surprised. Overall, a good Batman animated movie, worth at least a rental.",Positive "I have never seen a worse movie.

It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.

Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.

The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.

Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is ""Apathetic"" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the ""Actors"" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.

Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.

If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie.",Negative "I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of ""The Big Chill"" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like ""The Big Chill,"" it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt (""where have you been all this time"" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did ""Unca Lou"" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, ""Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?"" She replied, ""No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of.""",Negative "This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it ""builds"" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic.",Positive "The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is elegant, subtle, beautiful, and tragic all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he matures into his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray a whole other dimension to Smith, a refinement of talent, the selectivity of scripts, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to fully enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for the fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice.",Positive "The tighter the drama, the better the film of sister rivalry! This little gem was mainly promoted as a comedy upon its release in Sweden, so I'm glad to find that wasn't the whole case. Funny bits on small-town bickering are there to enjoy, surely, but the drama takes center stage, as the story progresses. And not just family drama, it also raises poignant questions on respecting differences of peoples' lifestyle choices.

Great character ensemble with many superb and moving dramatic scenes that score credibility points; and they're not just scattershot, but hold everything in place. It just makes me assume that if Ingmar Bergman had made this (the drama would suit him!), the international attention probably would have been immediate.

7 out of 10 from Ozjeppe.",Positive "Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****",Negative "This movie i have been dying to see. Well it took till now to decide to actually rent it. It was completely worth it. This movie made me laugh from the beginning to the end. Chris Rock is funny no matter which movie he is in. However, this should come real close to being his greatest. If ur lookin for a family movie, ie pre-teens and up then this is one u can't pass over.",Positive "I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name ""Sholay"" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.",Negative "There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica (""My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!"") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.

That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.

Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.

What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.

Also, I've seen the ""Last Frakkin special"" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole ""this was thousands of years in the past"" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.

All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.",Negative "*****Spoilers herein*****

What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?

Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. ""Pet Sematary"" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.

I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of ""Pet Sematary"": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.

The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.

I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children.",Positive "Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.

At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like ""I know what you did"", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.

No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse.",Negative "This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized ""Big 3"" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.",Negative "While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think ""The Castaways"" or ""The Island At The Top Of The World"" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon.",Positive "Some of those guys that watch films and complain about them for a living are forgetting something: DVD menu system. I tell you the people, I watched the main screen repeat in this one about 35 times. It was awesome. A cinematic tapestry of cascading brilliance that had me from where it was, which was the very beginning. Many times the sum and Bam! I was hooked. Over and over and over. And over.

""Doot de doot, de doo de dodedo."" And that's just the soundtrack!

I is laid aside in the bed, curled up with my Vaio. The rain is in the flat roof and tonight soft is again soft. The cat is comfortable and my ankle which crosses in me, is already rested. I popped in the DVD. I was mesmerized. Through the night. ""doot de doot, de doo de dodedo.""

The Blob. See it. Steve Queen, two cops, and one girl in a dress. Two thumbs way up!",Positive "This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting ""Happy Ending"" song at the end of ""It Happened At The World's Fair"", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called ""Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little"", and makes ""Stay Away Joe"" look like Olivier playing Othello.

Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).

Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).

There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of ""A Little Less Talk"" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.",Negative "I was surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.

How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!

I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.",Negative "The ""Confidential"" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.",Negative "Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?

This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.

Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.

Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...

Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior.",Negative "This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.

Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.

If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.

The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.

Too bad, I really wanted to like this.",Negative "A mercilessly corny and painfully unfunny attempt to transplant the character of Sheriff Bart from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles into his own weekly sitcom, this is really as bad as some people say it is!

The laugh-track only serves to remind the unamused viewer what all in this supposed comedy is intended to be a joke and just how desperate for laughs it really is!

However, it is somewhat interesting to see Louis Gossett Jr. trying his best to impersonate Cleavon Little. His embarrassment shows through in every scene. He was much funnier in the HBO movie El Diablo than he was here in this slab of cheese!

Truly the best and funniest thing about Black Bart is the name of his horse!",Negative "This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called ""fun""! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10",Negative "I would strongly recommend this film for any musical fan whose been dying to see a musical make a faithful transition from stage to screen. Sure it's long, but it's length is a testimony to how true to the original musical script the film is being. The sets and cast really make Sweet Apple, Ohio the place to be. Fosse protege Anne Reinking also does a splendid job with choreography giving the dances a nice small town, period feel.

The casting at a glance may look strange to some but they really are qute marvelous(reading ""annonymous""'s comments on Jason Alexander's performance made me sick). In fact, his perforamnce literally steals the show. As Albert, he mixes his own unique blend of manic nervousness with Dick Van Dyke-esque charm to create a new and improved Albert. The fact that he can dance and sing like nobody's business doeesn't hurt either. George Wendt is another stand out, who improves upon Paul Lynde's take on Harry McAffe by making him less manic and more down to Earth and strict. His whole character and body language scream ""over my dead body"". Marc Kudisch takes the Elvis aspect of Conrad Birdie to new heights with his subtle insertion of a ""thank you very much"" in ""Honestly Sincere"". His physicality though harkens back more to young Elvis then the bloated, stubly Conrad of the original film. The fact is that this movie differs so greatly from the original film (which added drawn in happpy faces, turtles on speed and the Russian ballet!!!) what did any of taht have to do with Bye, Bye Birdie, I wonder? The only possible advantage the original version has over this one is Ann Margret. Otherwise the update is better in every possible way. Where the old version cut many songs and increased dance breaks nwhere there was no need for them (and for all intents and purposes ended the movie in the middle of the play), the new version has restored the original music score and has added some great new stuff as well (""A Giant Step"" being the standout in that category). We know live in trying times but if you want to get your mind off your troubles and put on a happy face then this is one worth checking out.",Positive "I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of ""A Good Baby.""

Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.

This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly.",Positive """Drawing Restraint 9"" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with ""killing whales is bad"" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word ""propaganda"" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where ""good"" and ""bad"" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.

In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, ""Drawing Restraint 9"" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.

And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.

2/10.",Negative "I absolutely adore the 'Toxic Avenger' series, but this weak offering by the Troma people didn't make any sense, and it had me yawning all the time.

A leaking nuclear plant (and the growing weed next to it) makes the youngsters of Tromaville High go nuts, which causes them to join a gang, have sex, explode, and whatever. Also there's some sort of monster breeding in the high school... my God, this movie's a mess.

The actors pretty much stopped their efforts after this one and they should. The (intended) overacting started to get on my nerves in about 5 minutes...

Disappointing. 2/10.",Negative "This is how I feel about the show.

I started watching the show in reruns in 2001.

I enjoy the show but it had too many faults.

I HATE THE MICHELLE & JOEY CHARACTERS!

Stealing story lines from old TV shows. They even stole from ""The Partirdge Family."" Then in 1 episode ""The Partridge Family"" was mentioned.

Actors playing different roles in different episodes. MTV Martha Quinn the most notable doing this, especially when she played herself in 1 episode.

The Michelle character COULD NOT take a joke but then they had this little kid act out ""revenge"" to her sisters for a joke by them on her.

Story lines that came & went in 1 episode. Joey getting the TV show with Frankie & Annette, never heard from it again after that. Danny all of a sudden playing the guitar. 1 episode he is coaching soccer, 1 episode he is coaching softball/baseball. 1 game & you are out huh Danny?

Jesse & Joey keep getting jobs REALLY QUICKLY with no experience. Only in a TV show.

I did like the D.J. & Stephanie characters. Wish Jodie Sweetin could have learned from Candace Cameron Bure & had a clean NON drug adult life.",Positive "It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a ""therapy"" for me with a personal experience of my own.

A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he ""missed the ball"" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, ""if only I'd hit that ball"" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.

It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were ""all that."" I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.

Through the years, even now sometimes, I think ""If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights."" Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!!",Positive "No message. No symbolism. No dark undercurrents.Just a wonderful melange of music, nostalgia and good fun put to-gether by people who obviously had a great time doing it. It's a refreshing antidote to some of the pretentious garbage being ground out by the studios. Of course ANYTHING with the incomparable Judi Dench is worth watching. And Cleo Laine's brilliant jazz singing is a bonus. This lady is in the same league as the late Ella. This goes on my movie shelf to be pulled out again anytime I feel the need for a warm experience and a hearty good natured chuckle. Just a wonderful film!",Positive "OK I caught this film halfway through, but.oh.dear.god.it.sounds.like.they're.all.reading.from.scripts.

Especially that guy who is now in Teachers and the Book Group, although at least he has proved that he can act if he wants to! (the part where someone has a heart attack stands out as a bastion of bad film making both in terms of acting, scripting and general plausibility) It quite clearly appears to be a cash-in on Human Traffic, but whilst that is not the best film ever, it is at least original and had actors whose delivery did not resemble that of earnest-yet-hopeless GCSE students trying to get a pass grade. Not so much as Human Traffic as a bit of a car crash!",Negative "According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.

Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.

George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket.

Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.

Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.

Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.

Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.

Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.

Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market.",Positive "I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1

It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:

And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short

At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...

In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it",Negative "I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.

Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10",Negative "I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.

Have any of you Yankees watched the movie ""Der Untergang"" or ""The Dawnfall""? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch ""Der Untergang"":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.",Negative "From the first scene you are given clues as to what may be going on here. It becomes more and more obvious as the story rolls on. The acting is excellent throughout and these actors touch your soul. Even though I knew what was going to happen I was extremely puzzled by the motive. I'm still puzzled as to why Ben did what he did. We could see in his face ""second thoughts"", but the ultimate sacrifice seemed to go against his emotion and feelings. It was a very interesting and touching story but it left me confused. Maybe that was the point of the film. I did like the film and Wil Smith can wrack up another good film choice. This guy knows how to entertain an audience!",Positive "This is amazing-looking movie with the whole thing done in just six or seven colors. When it came out over 15 years ago, it stunned audiences with its color scheme, being so different from anything else that had ever been put on film. Those colors, for me at least, make this an absolutely fascinating film to watch. There are literally thousands of scenes I wish could freeze and somehow convert them to a painting to study for their artwork.

The characters and the story don't match up to the greatness of the photography, but they are all over-the-top, especially the villains. The famous actors who played them here must have a had a lot of fun on the set playing ""Flatop,"" ""Pruneface,"" ""Lips,"" ""Mumbles,"" etc.

Meanwhile, Warren Beatty and Gleanne Hedley are good as Dick Tracey and girlfriend Tess Truehart, and she's as sweet and soft as her name. Another good addition is Charlie Korsmo as the delinquent young boy Dick and Tess take under their wing. The colorful other characters are played by Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, William Forysthe, Paul Sorvino, Mandy Patinkin, Madona and other names you know but are too numerous to list here. Check the full credits on the main page and you'll amazed.

The only negatives I found were Pacino's voice which grates on you after awhile, Madonna's off-key singing voice and the fact that the film would have been better trimmed about 10 minutes. Those ""faults"" are all minor because overall, this is a fun movie....a cartoon strip coming to life in an incredibly-colorful fashion.....like nothing you have ever seen.",Positive "This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled...",Positive "I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.

As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.

Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.

The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.

Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors.

The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series.",Positive "Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).",Negative "I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.

I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.

What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film.

Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out.",Negative "To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.",Negative "Infamous pre-code film, really the one film that caused people to insist on the Hayes Code being strictly enforced. Barbara Stanwyck stars as a young girl whose liquor-selling father has no problem pimping her out to customers. When he dies in an accident, she's released out into the world with the knowledge that her nubile body can get her whatever she wants. She goes to New York and proceeds to climb the corporate ladder, one bed at a time. Although obviously there's no actual sex shown, the film is quite sleazy. Unfortunately, after the initial shock value fades (around the time Stanwyck screws a rail car inspector so she can travel for free), the film becomes a tad repetitive and dull. Stanwyck herself is the only thing that keeps the film worth sitting through. As always, she's fantastic.",Positive "The play Bell, Book, and Candle was a favorite of mature actresses to do in summer stock and take on the road. One famous story, told by director Harold J. Kennedy, has Ginger Rogers insisting that her then husband, William Marshall, who was not an actor, costar with her. Marshall wore a toupee, and when he walked through a doorway, his toupee caught on a nail and stayed behind, dangling in the doorway as he walked on stage.

The play was adapted successfully into a beautiful color film starring Kim Novak, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, Elsa Lanchester, Hermoine Gingold, Ernie Kovacs, and Janice Rule. It's light entertainment, about a normal-appearing family of witches (Novak, Lemmon, and Lanchester) and the publisher (Stewart) who lives in their building. The most expert of them is the sultry, soft-voiced Gillian, who would love to be normal. One night, with Stewart in her apartment, she puts a spell on him using her Siamese cat, Pyewacket, and he falls in love with her.

""Bell Book and Candle"" was filmed on a charming set that replicates New York. The movie is loads of fun. Jack Lemmon is very funny in a supporting role as Gillian's brother, a musician in the witch and warlock-laden Zodiac Club. He uses his powers to turn streetlights on and off and to turn on the occasional woman. Janice Rule is perfect as the snobby ex-college rival of Gillian, now dating Stewart, and Ernie Kovacs has a great turn as an eccentric who is writing the definitive book on witches. Lanchester and Gingold, of course, are always wonderful, Lanchester Gillian's daft aunt and Gingold as a sort of queen of witchcraft.

Kim Novak is a good fit for Gillian, giving the character a detachment befitting a witch, showing emotion when it becomes appropriate, and with that voice, fabulous face, and magnificent wardrobe, she certainly is magical. Stewart, in his last foray as a romantic lead, costars with Novak as he did in Vertigo, and they make an effective team. He supplies the warmth, she supplies the coolness, and somehow, together they spark. In this, of course, he's much more elegant than in ""Vertigo."" A charming film, good for a Sunday afternoon, good around Christmas (as part of it takes place at Christmastime), and great if you feel like smiling.",Positive "The Straight Story is a multilevel exploration of the goodness and beauty of America. At one level a slow walk through the heartland, it's kind inhabitants, and amber grain, at another level about growing old and remembering what is important(and actively forgetting what isn't). David Lynch gives us time in this movie and helps me to remember that so much can be said with silence. A remarkable movie that will rest gently with me for some time to come.",Positive "Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.",Negative "This is according to me a quite bizarre movie with a lot of humor in it. I wouldn't say that it is very scary, but more fun I guess. That is if you like horror movies. Scarecrow kind of remembered me of ""Children of the corn"", but still not. If you compare these two movies this is much more fun to watch =)",Positive "Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to ""supposedly"" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.",Negative "I had several problems with the movie:

(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.

(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.

(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.

On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me.",Negative "I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains.

If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!",Negative "There are some things I will never understand; why underwear comes in packs of threes when clearly thats not enough is an example. Similarly, I will never understand this film, and that is brilliant. If you approach this film expecting an actual movie, you might as well be approaching Satan expecting a hug; although that may well be possible if you greet this film's Satanic figures. Take Pitch for instance; the most ineffectual, camp, unhellish portrayal of a devil since Freddy Mercury and Wayne Sleep joined forces to create a ten foot Satan costume from red body paint and horns covered with condoms. However, it does create some of the most hilarious moments of any film ever. Seriously, this is no understatement. The same can be applied to every other character, bar the little girl who acts so sickly innocent she's probably overcompensating for some serious crime she's part of. Then again, if Santa's inter-space recon station is real, there is no chance she could have avoided him this long. Put simply, if you haven't seen this movie, you cannot consider yourself a serious buff. The achingly funny characterisation, acting, concept, and almost-under-the-radar racism makes this a must see above any film to date (if you're after pure laughter that is).",Positive "We all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.

Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.

Maybe I should say, ""just another"" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.

Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?

From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.

Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.

But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.",Negative "This film is one of the best shorts I've ever seen - and as I make it a point to be at all the major film festivals, I've seen a lot, especially of what the industry considers ""the best."" I'm not a fan of Monaghan. His acting generally tends to be overdone and uninteresting to me, his only decent performance being in Lost, so I generally try to avoid his films. I did, however, happen to see this at a film festival a few years back and was completely awed. This director really knows what she's doing. Of course, you are going to get the trolls (or just ignorant people) who don't understand what constitutes a good film and rip on low budget work because they have no idea what went into it. But luckily, from what I've seen, they are in the minority when it comes to this gem.

Let's not deny that the film was working on no budget, and that a couple of the supporting actors could still use work, because that's certainly true. The production value is very low, but what can you expect for a first real film from someone still in high school? Pretend for a moment that the budget doesn't matter. If you take away a bit of the acting, the sound quality (which actually wasn't the fault of the filmmaker; I saw this at a festival and the sound was fine...I guarantee whoever made the DVD itself screwed up), and the fact it was shot on mini-DV, then what are you left with? The story, the visual composition and the soul of the film, which are indisputably flawless.

Nanavati can tell a story. That much is clear. She can write substance-heavy, engaging scripts better than most people in Hollywood, create a shot list that perfectly compliments that story, and bring it to life in a fascinating, creative way that, were this higher budget, might have won awards. Give it more experienced actors, better sound post-production, and 35mm instead of mini-DV and even the trolls couldn't complain. This girl is incredible, and keeping in mind that Insomniac was made a good few years ago, she's done some amazing work since. The trailer for Dreams of an Angel shows that, and I can't wait to see the higher budget stuff she's done. 9/10 stars, this is one hell of a movie from one hell of a filmmaker.",Positive "I saw Soylent Green back in 1973 when it was first released and maybe another eight times over the years on T.V. or video. It was always one of my favorite sci-fi and/or Charlton Heston films.

Recently, the Egyptian theater in L.A. had a twelve film Charlton Heston retrospective. I flew in from out of state to see six of the films over a two day period. Soylent Green looked great on the large Egyptian screen with a perfect new print. From its opening montage to the going home scene to the great ending the film was fantastic.

Charlton Heston as a cop who lives in a dog eat dog world with few natural resources left and no understanding as to how the world used to be and Eddie Robinson as a man who remembers the past are both great.

Their chemistry together is wonderful. The film also looks so much better in a great 35mm print. Fleisher really knows how to fill the screen,and the cinematoraphy, writing, music used, and everything about it works. The film is also very powerful in its bleak and very possible view of the future. Just think how the world population grew, the rain forest that disappeared, resources used up, green house effect getting worse since 1973. I just wonder why this film has not played in theaters all these years. Its reputation should be better.

Speaking of reputations, often people speak as if Charlton Heston is not a great actor. Seeing him in El-Cid, Soylent Green, The Warlord, The Omega Man, Will Penny, and Major Dundee back to back I am convinced he is one of our best actors. Of course he made about a dozen other great films and for those that care you know what they are.

",Positive "That's what t.v. should be. And Pushing Daisies lives up to those expectations. A beautifully crafted and well-designed show, Pushing Daisies is one of the few shows left on prime-time that has integrity, is good for the entire family and sparks your imagination. It's not about the normal action, sex, money or murder angles of every other show on t.v. It's a show that makes you think and laugh, but although the basic plot may seem impossible, the concepts are real to us all. Wanting something you can't have, hoping for someone to want us, running away from your past and searching for family, even in the most unlikely of places, etc...

I realize that ABC has basically canceled this wonderful show at this point, and will most likely replace it with some show beyond the point of integrity. I suppose everything does come back to money... it's too bad that there are now no other shows on ABC that actually make you feel good after watching.",Positive "Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye.",Positive "After watching Awake,I led to a conclusion:director and screenwriter Joby Harold made Awake with the intention of laughing at the spectator,for the simple fact the movie is full of ridiculous elements.Awake has a lot of plot holes and it is full of absurd and ridiculous elements(for example,the hospital uniform the spirit of the main character uses...did the ghost of a doctor leave it in the floor ?).The concept behind this movie is slightly ingenious but all the plot holes and the absurd things make of this a stupid and crappy film.With the exception of the great Lena Olin,all the actors bring bad performances.Hayden Christensen has zero expressions and the same applies for Jessica Alba.The extraordinary actor Terrence Howard is enormously wasted on his role.Awake makes a laugh of the spectator.It's so ridiculous and full of absurd things that it's impossible to take it seriously.My recommendation is:skip this crappy movie.",Negative "I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby

in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies

also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.

",Positive "I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.

This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10",Negative I liked this movie a lot. It really intrigued me how Deanna and Alicia became friends over such a tragedy. Alicia was just a troubled soul and Deanna was so happy just to see someone after being shot. My only complaint was that in the beginning it was kind of slow and it took awhile to get to the basis of things. Other than that it was great.,Positive "Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.",Negative "The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.

Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste.",Negative "I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how ""wholesome"" and ""entertaining"" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although ""credit"" isn't the word I would use (neither is ""director""). As for ""wholesome entertainment,"" there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.",Negative "Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never let

him direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.

Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off the

set) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like Alice

Evans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect from

teen-produced children's shows on british TV.

Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate and

ill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it is

a case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparently

unengineered from a single mike, and a director who only

intermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and we

have what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result of

recent years.",Negative "For the life of me, why did this film receive an R rating?! While it IS about flesh-eating zombies, believe it or not, it's actually a pretty good family-friendly film--at least if your kids are age 10 and older. Unlike the traditional zombie films, this one has an excellent sense of humor as well as a traditional values--albeit a bit twisted! The language isn't a serious problem, there is no nudity and the film style is definitely geared towards kids (much like the old TV show ""Eerie, Indiana"")--yet some knucklehead slapped an R rating one it! Believe me, most kids have seen worse violence than this and it just seems silly to make audiences think this is an adults only film.

The story is set in a parallel-type world. While the fashions, cars and mores appear circa 1953, in this bizarro world there has been a fierce recent zombie plague that resulted in the ""zombie war"" and massive changes in everyday life. At school, kids are trained in armed combat and there's a cute scene late in the film where the father gives his son a handgun and tells him to keep it in his backpack ""just in case""! As for life outside of school, it's pretty weird as well, as people now have learned that zombies AREN'T such a bad thing! Heck, using shock collars and training, they can be made into slaves who can do your housework, clean streets, deliver milk or, in the case of a really sick guy, be your ""special friend"".

This film deals with one particular family that finally buys their first zombie slave (played by Billy Connally). Mom is thrilled and her son slowly becomes the zombie's friend. Dad, on the other hand, isn't convinced--as he was forced years early to kill his own zombie father and he hasn't yet gotten over this!! Funny, irreverent and unique--this film needs to be seen by a much wider audience.",Positive "This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from ""the next generation of beautiful losers"" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988.",Negative "Don't say I didn't warn you, but your gonna laugh. Probably enough to hurt your stomach. Sure it's got some blood splattering, all in good fun though. So, it's got no budget, who needs a budget when you got a script like this.

Take the time and check this out. Well worth a two hour viewing. If everyone could laugh as much as I did during this movie the world would be a much happier place to live.

",Positive "Hi:

I heard about lost from a co-worker that had obvious differences of opinion on entertainment, he loved it. Well I watched an episode or 2 in the early seasons and was bored, so I tuned it out. After a few years I stumbled upon lost; bored with the current sci-fi fare. Wow was I surprised. Can you say gravity well, damn I got sucked in. The pace and scripting are very good, some of the flash forward/backs are so so with the lamer characters, but over all good. My favorite characters are Ben, Locke, Jacob, Richard Alpert, Sayid Jarrah, Sawyer, Hurley, Daniel Faraday, Jin & Wife, Walt, Charlie, Desmond, and Jack's dad. Jack and Michael definitely are immature asshats, very spoiled and immature. Kate 1 step above them, Juliet was way more classy than Kate. Mr. Eko way under-rated and on the level of Charlie if not more, too bad they both died. The guy dressed in black talking to Jacob (way back) is a genuine curiosity. As a whole great, very layered series: looking for more.

regards",Positive "As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?",Negative "Without effective indulgence of the supernatural or the poetic motivating nuances of humanity, all this creative team has to hope for is effective usage of its middling, unoriginal elements. 'Party of Five' gone maniacal then genetically unescapable there's little rooting interest because the singular non-homicidal element is a second-rate bland awful-acting 'Wes Bentley' mopester. In fact, all of the acting is skin deep. Even though the dark-haired women appeal, the salaciousness is kept to a minimum. No nudity here. Also lacking are sufficient buckets of blood. All sensations are kept at a teasing, safe distance...an unfortunate fact considering the given name of the directors is 'butcher.' Only the soundtrack, the droning angsty alt-country and the tense fluctuating score provide any palpable tension. Sometimes some static storyboarded compositions add appealing low-angles that adds to the malaise...but for a film that calls itself horror, I did not even get close to flinching once. Perhaps a greater emphasis on societal rejuvenation through blood intake, scenes directed with varying geometric shapes outside the square, and a sustained focus on playfulness through the family's maliciousness or traps sympathetic characters need to escape in order to escape their dilemma would have improved my opinion, but this was not a good start to my excursion through horrorfest.",Negative "This has just been broadcast on BBC and I am absolutely delighted to have seen it. As the credits rolled, the cast alone made certain that I would give it a go. After just five minutes I was completely immersed in this beautiful film.

Yes it was formulaic and predictable, but that somehow added to it's charm. The flashbacks to the forties were wonderfully placed and captured a feeling equalled in few productions.

A real feel-good film, punctuated throughout with outstanding music. When it's released, I'll buy it!",Positive "I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.

I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.

Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy ""Hey Arnold!"", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch ""Hey Arnold!"" as I used to watch it on the past.

Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.

Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.",Negative "I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.

This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot!

The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.

However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.

The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of ""The Food,"" I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...

In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in ""Weekend with the Babysitter.""",Positive "Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.

I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?

I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.

FART JOKES.",Negative "To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'.",Negative its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any,Positive "A long time ago, I watched this movie from the middle on cable. I then had a crush on Mary Moronov. I saw her again in Eating Raoul. I was convinced that she's the hottest woman on screen.

I maybe biased about this movie. 9 out of 10.

This's the only movie I own on original tape.",Positive "I, as a teenager really enjoyed this movie! Mary Kate and Ashley worked great together and everyone seemed so at ease. I thought the movie plot was very good and hope everyone else enjoys it to! Be sure and rent it!! Also they had some great soccer scenes for all those soccer players! :)",Positive "This modern film noir with its off beat humour and dizzying succession of plot twists delivers a story full of surprises, dangerous characters and excellent entertainment from start to finish. It's impossible not to empathise with the honest, unassuming hero or to be gripped by the ways in which he tries to navigate his way out of the terrible predicaments that he finds himself in, so all you can do is fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.

The story of an ordinary guy who makes a poor decision and then finds that the repercussions propel him into an uncontrollable sequence of events from which he is unable to extricate himself is pure film noir. The same is true of the themes of murder, deceit, corruption and duplicity which are pervasive throughout. Many of the familiar noir visual motifs are also present, such as the way in which cigarette smoke is lit, the rain soaked roads at night, the heavily shadowed interiors and the lines of shadow (created by louvred doors) across people's faces.

Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage), an injured war veteran without money or a job, stops off at a bar in Red Rock, Wyoming and is mistaken by the proprietor Wayne Brown (J T Walsh) for a hit man that he's arranged to employ to murder his wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). Michael, a naturally reticent person, does nothing to disabuse Wayne of his misapprehension, especially as he could use a job and at first doesn't realise what he'd be expected to do. After having been told what his mission is and been given a $5,000 advance, he goes to see Suzanne and warns her about Wayne's plan. She doesn't seem overly concerned about the danger she's in and offers Michael double the fee Wayne had offered, for him to eliminate her husband.

Michael decides to take the money he'd received from both parties and leave town. His plan fails however, when he accidentally drives into a man who is standing in the middle of the road and decides to take him to hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. At the hospital, things get more complicated when it emerges that the patient is Suzanne's lover and he has two bullets in his stomach. This leads to the local law enforcement officers getting involved and the revelation that Wayne is the Sheriff!! From this point on, things get even more complicated and also decidedly more dangerous especially when the real hit man, Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper) arrives on the scene.

""Red Rock West"" has some great moments of suspense, (an example of this is the scene in which Michael makes his escape from Wayne's bar) and also some great performances from its very strong cast. Nicolas Cage's expressions are extremely natural and convincing as he reacts to a variety of situations with anxiety, surprise or uncertainty and J T Walsh is also particularly good as a deceptive character who's always concealing more than he's actually saying. Dennis Hopper is intensely threatening as the vicious contract killer (a role he plays with great gusto) and Lara Flynn Boyle looks suitably cold and calculating as the femme fatale. Dwight Yoakam also provides some good support and moments of humour in his cameo role as a no nonsense truck driver.

Incredibly, ""Red Rock West"" was originally destined to be denied a general cinema release but has justifiably emerged from its modest beginnings to eventually be recognised as the great movie that it really is.",Positive "I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...

I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK!

What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace.

CB",Positive "There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture ""Witch Light,"" and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the ""Lady in Black.""

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the ""actress"" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.",Negative "Victor McLaglen's performance is one of the finest in film history.

I think we can all feel for ""Gypo"" because we've all struggled with what is right and what isn't and been wrong. This was one of the first art-house pictures to be released by a major American movie studio (RKO Radio Pictures).

Joseph H. August's cinematography is at its very best here. However, August's stunning portion was mostly overlooked; he didn't receive the Oscar nomination he rightly deserved.

This is a psychological drama, with thought, philosophy, sadness, all conveyed with as little words as possible.",Positive "Teenager Eddie spends his life being bullied and humiliated due to his obsession with heavy metal music. One day he finds out his hero Sammi Curr has died, supposedly burned by the establishment which wanted to put a stop to his music. But Eddie has his last record, never released, and when he plays it he starts receiving messages telling him how to deal with his tormentors. Before long Sammi has revealed he intends to return to life at the local Halloween party to exact revenge on the town which once mocked him.

Filled with humour and in-jokes, this is a highly entertaining film. Sammi himself is an original horror movie villain, plays on the 'evils of rock music' obsessions of the 80's. Well worth watching.",Positive "The Mother is one of those films that you know is good, maybe even great, but it is like eating vegetables or doing math homework is to a kid - too much work and a whole lot of pain to get invested in.

The story is potentially distasteful in many ways: the death of a character within the first half hour, the December-May romance, the idea of a man cheating on his wife and then cheating on his lover with her mother, the collection of weak and rather unpleasant thirty-something characters, the apparent indifference of the adults to the children in their lives. This movie was made in the 2002 or 2003, but is a throw back to a collection of British (usually made-for-TV) movies from the late 1980's - it has a moral severity that never lets up, which produces an enveloping throbbing angst.

The Mother is flawless, but that is in part the problem; if a film dealing with so many sensitive issues has some flaws - inconsistencies of script, some lesser actors - it takes the edge off, but if such a film is so pitch perfect, the experience of watching it is raw and painful. Even the technical qualities - lighting, editing, etc. - make the viewer ache; the London in this movie is bright and open, filled with harsh, cutting light.

If you are tough as nails, or are one of those super-sensitive people who likes to torture themselves with gut-wrenching sad movies or novels, then you will enjoy The Mother. Anyone in between, give it a miss, or be prepared to squirm. And be warned: as tough as the movie is from beginning to near-end, the worst is to come.

Toward the end of the movie, the mother asks her daughter what she can do to make up for it (for having slept with her boyfriend), and the daughter calmly says that she has thought about it and would like to hit her. The mother agrees to this, they both stand up, and - instead of a well primed slap - the daughter clenches her fist and delivers a boxer's blow. Argh!!!",Positive """Panic in the Streets"" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.

Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.

The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. ""Panic in the Streets"" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10)",Positive "If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.

Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.

The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.

Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.

By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones.",Negative "Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable.

The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism.",Negative "DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...

Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.

Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?

Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.

DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...",Negative """The Shop Around the Corner"" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of ""You've Got Mail"" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find ""The Shop Around the Corner"" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy!",Positive "This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.

WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!

The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.

She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.",Negative "WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).

In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of ""I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3."" At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).

Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.

VERDICT 1/2* out of ****",Negative "This is a very enjoyable film with excellent actors and actresses evoking a range of emotions. It contains some really excellent humour which the whole family can enjoy. You get to know the characters quickly and experience their ups and downs. And, it ends very upbeat",Positive Now i have never ever seen a bad movie in all my years but what is with songs in the movie what physiological meaning does it have. WOW some demented Pokémon shows up and they multiply i can get a seizure from this. Animie is pointless the makers of it are pointless its a big marketing scheme look just cut down on songs and they will get a good rating i reckon that this movie would have been fine if they put out a message you must see all the Pokémon episodes to understand whats going on and it is not a film. It is just an animation it should be on video.

Ps: i'll give it a 1 because i just got 5 bucks i could not give it a half because there's no halves.,Negative "Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy.",Positive "Prix de Beauté was made on the cusp of the changeover from silence to sound, which came a little later in Europe than in Hollywood. Originally conceived as a silent, it was released with a dubbed soundtrack in France, with a French actress speaking Louise Brooks' lines, but was released as a silent in Italy and other parts of Europe. I was lucky enough to see the Cineteca di Bologna's flawless new restoration of an Italian silent print at the Tribeca Film Festival. I haven't seen the talkie version yet, but I think it's safe to assume the silent version is much more satisfying, since by all reports the dubbing is poorly done (Louise Brooks is clearly speaking English, so there's no way her lips could be matched.) Also, the film is made entirely in the silent style, with few titles and little need for dialogue. Prix de Beauté tells its story visually, with exciting, imaginative camera-work. The opening is instantly kinetic, with rapidly-cut scenes of urban life and swimmers splashing at a public beach. Throughout the film there is an emphasis on visual detail, on clothing, machinery, decoration, and symbolic images such as a caged bird, a heap of torn photographs, a diamond bracelet. This is silent film technique at its pinnacle.

Louise Brooks, of course, is responsible for saving the film from obscurity. Seeing this makes it only more heartbreaking to reflect that this was her last starring role. Lustrously beautiful, she dominates the film with her charisma and also gives a perfectly natural yet highly charged performance. Her role here, more than in the Pabst films for which she's best known, is a woman we can fully understand and sympathize with. She plays Lucienne Garnier, a typist with a possessive fiancé, who yearns to get more out of life and secretly enters a beauty contest, with immediate success. She is then torn between the excitement of her glamorous new life and her love for the man who insists she give it all up or lose him. All of the characters are drawn with nuance. The fiancé inspires pity and is not merely a brute: he loves Lucienne, but is a limited man who can't cope with her having a life apart from him or attracting the attentions of other men. Even the ""other man"" in the story is not the simple slimeball we first take him for, though his intentions may be just as possessive as the fiancé's.

*************************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW*****************

The film has many fine set pieces, including Lucienne's triumph in the ""Miss Europe"" contest, shown through the comic reactions of assorted audience members, who wind up pelting the heroine with flowers; her misery as a housewife, peeling potatoes while the pendulum of the cuckoo clock marks time behind her; a nightmarish trip to a fun-fair (in the silent version, this occurs late in the film, after her marriage) at which Lucienne, crushed among the low-lifes and depressed by her husband's macho antics, decides that she can't go on with her present existence; and especially the final scene in the projection room where she views her talkie screen test. Louise Brooks may never have looked more beautiful than she does here, with the projector's beam flickering on her alabaster profile, her shoulders swathed in white fur, her face incandescent under the black helmet of hair as she watches herself singing on screen. The double shot of her exquisite corpse and her still-living image on the screen is particularly poignant: Louise Brooks' image, like Lucienne's, remains immortal despite her frustratingly aborted film career.",Positive "Can we say retarded? This girl has no talent what so ever, nothing but complete garbage. You people are just marking 10 stars because you know most people hate this pathetic woman, if its such a ""great"" show then why did it get canceled after 6 measly episodes? exactly. People that support her, please seek help you do NOT know what is funny. Her stand up comedy is just so stupid, seriously how do you find this trash funny? The show tries to poke fun at stereo types and other things that are not funny at all. Carlos Mencia is funny and to that stupid poster, he actually has fans and his show is on the air so I'm sorry your a redneck who doesen't get his jokes. Please give me my 20 minutes of my life back.",Negative "In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!

0 out of 10",Negative "American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.

Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.",Negative "This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best.",Positive "It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!

Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.

I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.

The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.",Negative "Moonchild is a very difficult movie to categorise. It's easiest to think of it as several snapshots of the lives of the two central characters. The fact that these characters are members of a street gang set in an multicultural city of the near future and that one of them is a vampire does not preclude them from having moments like any other people, and this is one of the places where this movie is different to anything else I've ever heard of. It doesn't get wrapped up in the fact that one of the main characters is a vampire, it's just something that has to be dealt with like any other problem. The way the characters interact is surprisingly realistic- there are embarrassing relatives and tricks that are meant to look cool that just don't work, which leaves the film with a lovely sense of not taking itself too seriously for the most part.

The other area that really stood out to me is the languages. The fictional city of Mallepa contains various cultural groups, and characters speak the language that they would be expected to speak. Japanese gang members speak Japanese to each other, but Chinese when talking to characters of Chinese descent. Possibly the most amusing exchange involves an Australian and is conducted in English. The actors of the four arguably main characters have three separate mother tongues between them and speak varying levels of each others' languages, so it's quite a feat that the movie was made at all. Which, I suppose, brings me to the lead actors.

Much has been made of the fact that the movie stars two of Japan's biggest rockstars, Gackt and Hyde, as well as Taiwanese superstar Lee-hom Wang, whether it is to praise them for their acting or criticise it or simply fangirl about them. In my opinion, Lee-hom is the best at playing a straight and realistic character. However, any lack of acting ability on Gackt's part is mostly masked by the fact that the character he plays is prone to being over-dramatic. I wasn't sure if Hyde's character was supposed to be as sulky and sarcastic as he came across, but it doesn't really detract from the movie either way.

There are several scenes which take rather melodramatic turns, which made it difficult for them to affect me much emotionally (Although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people). I found it's best to just enjoy the movie for what it is and not take it too seriously- It's perfect for getting out and watching with a group of friends. It does have its flaws, but overall it was very enjoyable and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind a few subtitles.",Positive "This movie really surprised me. I had my doubts about it at first but the movie got better and better for each minute.

It is maybe not for the action seeking audience but for those that like an explicit portrait of a very strange criminal, man, lover and husband. If you're not a fan of bad language or sexual content this really is not for you.

The storyline is somewhat hard to follow sometimes, but in the end I think it made everything better. The ending was unexpected since you were almost fouled to think it would end otherwise.

As for the acting I think it was good. It will not be up for an Oscar award for long but it at least caught my eye. Gil Bellows portrait of a prison man is not always perfect but it is very entertaining. Shaun Parkes portrait of Bellows prison mate Clinique is great and extremely powerful. On the downside I think I will put Esai Morales portrait of Markie.

Take my advice and watch this movie, either you will love it or dislike it!",Positive "This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong.

First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it....

All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...",Negative "HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.

HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.

**** out of 4 stars.",Positive "The British claymation series putting ""witty"" conversations taped from ""average"" people in the mouths of ""cute"" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.

Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't ""translate"" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.

The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or ""how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson""), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when ""Two and A Half Men"" (guilty pleasure) and ""How I Met Your Mother"" (actual quality writing) come on.",Negative "Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.",Negative "CONTAINS SPOILER With the possible exception of John Wayne, no other actor sat taller in the saddle in Westerns than James Stewart, and this movie proves it. This superb tale of revenge centered around a Winchester rifle,has only one weak spot I can think of: the casting of Will Geer as a very unEarp-like Wyatt Earp. The casting of the villains was good:Stephen McNally, as surly Dutch Henry,Dan Duryea as Waco Johnny Dean, and John McIntire(versatile at playing both good guys and bad guys) as a slick gun runner. The showdown between Stewart and McNally on the cliffs is great! I'd stack this Western against the whole crop of Westerns made today. They wouldn't stand a chance!",Positive "There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach!",Positive "I saw this in Detroit in what must have been its original run. I literally rolled into the aisle of the theater. It was that funny. I haven't seen it since, but would love to. Where do you get a copy? Anybody saying anything about it being dated or overdone are, for my money, just a bunch of poseurs. Each skit is either wickedly, erotically or perversely hilarious. Each one! There is not a weak one included. The opening sequence, for instance, which parodies 2001, features gorilla go-go-dancers with pendulous breasts. Felinni would have filmed it had he the wicked wit... If you come to this film with an open mind and a blithely sneering heart, you'll pencil it right into your very best list.",Positive "This is a truly terrible film.

I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.

Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.

I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?

Please, please, please do not watch this film!",Negative "If I watch a movie and don't once look at my watch or clock to see how much longer it will be running or when I hope that the last scene wasn't the end of the movie, it's got to be pretty good. I'm not an movie internalist or cinema dissectionist. I watch movies and if they keep me interested till the end, then they are pretty good because some of the most critically acclaimed films bore me to death (The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Atonement, Crash. This movie kept me interested and absorbed beginning to end. Acting is great, story is absolutely original, flash-back technique very affective. There was a bit of Citizen Kane thrown in tho when Hoffman trashes his apartment after Tomei leaves him, but I forgive that cause I see it as a homage to, rather than a rip-off of, Orson.",Positive "Like ""My Sassy Girl"", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from ""My Sassy Girl"" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than ""My Sassy Girl""--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10",Positive "Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...

And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.

That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.

That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.

But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.

First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...

Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.

The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.

This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once!",Positive "This gloriously turgid melodrama represents Douglas Sirk at his most high strung. It eschews the soft wistfulness of ""All That Heaven Allows"" and the weepy sentimentality of ""Imitation of Life"" and instead goes for feverish angst and overheated tension. And of course, it's all captured in vibrant Technicolor.

The cornball story has something to do with a friendship between Rock Hudson and Robert Stack that becomes a rivalry when Hudson snags the affections of Lauren Bacall, but who's really paying attention to the story? Dorothy Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her splendidly over-the-top performance as Stack's sister, who takes the family business into her own hands when no one else will. A highlight of the film comes when this high-spirited wild child breaks into a frantic dance in her bedroom, unable to bear the restraints placed upon her by middle-class propriety. As so frequently happens in Sirk movies, the scene is both unintentionally hilarious in its absurdity and yet strangely moving in its effectiveness.

Sirk came closer than anyone else to turning pure camp into high art, satisfying the philistines and the high brows at the same time within the same films. His was a unique talent and I don't know that there's ever been another film maker quite like him since.

Grade: A-",Positive "Laid up and drugged out, as a kidney stone wended its merry way through my scarred urinary tract, with absolutely nothing better to do than let the painkillers swoon me into semi-oblivion, I happened to catch this movie on cable. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I paid to view it in a cinema, or rented it, or – heaven forfend! – that I watched it STRAIGHT.

Having played this sensationally gruesome video game and avidly trod the doomed rooms and dread passageways of The House, battling Chariot (Type 27), The Hanged Man (Type 041), and other impossible sentinels, my curiosity was piqued as to how the game would transfer to the movie screen.

It doesn't.

The banal plot revolves around a group of ""crazy kids"" – a la Scooby Doo – attending a remote island for a world-shaking ""rave"" – whatever that is. (You kids today with your hula-hoops and your mini-skirts and your Pat Boone…) After bribing a boat captain thousands in cash to ferry them there (a stupidity which begs its own network of rhetoric), they find the ""rave"" deserted.

Passing mention is made of a ""house"" – presumably the titular House Of The Dead – but most of the action takes place on fake outdoor sets and other locales divorced from any semblance of haunted residence.

A fallen video camera acts as flashback filler, showing the island in the throes of a – party?! Is that it? Oh, so this ""rave"" thingy is just a ""party""? In the grand tradition of re-euphemizing ""used cars"" as ""pre-owned"", or ""shell shock"" as ""post-traumatic stress disorder"", the word ""party"" is now too square for you drug-addled, silicone-implanted, metrosexual jagoffs?

It is learned that the party was broken up by rampaging zombies. Intelligent thought stops here…

I don't think the pinheads who call themselves screenwriters and directors understand the mythos behind zombie re-animation. Zombies can't die – they're already UN-DEAD. They do not bleed, they know no pain. Unless their bodies are completely annihilated, they will continue being animated. At least, that's what my Jamaican witch priestess tells me.

Which means that a .45 shot into their ""hearts"" is not going to stop them, nor will a machete to the torso. And a shotgun blast to the chest will certainly NOT bring forth gouts of blood. At least in the video game's logic, the shooter pumps so many rounds into each monster that it is completely decimated, leaving a fetid mush that cannot re-animate itself.

Yet each actor-slash-model gets their Matrix-circular-camera moment, slaying zombies on all fronts with single bullets and karate chops to the sternum. Seriously, these zombies are more ineffective than the Stormtroopers from ""Return Of The Jedi"", who get knocked out when Ewoks trip them.

I suppose the film's writer, Mark Altman, having penned the not-too-shabby ""Free Enterprise"", felt compelled to insert a Captain Kirk reference, in the character of Jurgen Prochnow, who must have needed milk money desperately to have succumbed to appearing in this aromatic dung-swill. There is also a reference to Prochnow's primo role in the magnificent ""Das Boot"", when one of the untrained B-actors mentions that he ""looks like a U-Boat Captain"". "". I wonder how many of this movie's target audience of square-eyed swine picked up on ANY of the snide references to other films, as when Prochnow declares, ""Say hello to my little friend"", presaging his machine gun moment.

Aimed at a demographic who have not the wherewithal to comprehend the Sisyphean futility of the video-game concept (i.e. the game ends when you die – you cannot win), this is merely a slasher film for the mindless and mindless at heart. Accordingly, everyone dies in due course, except for a heterosexual pair of Attractive White People.

A better use for this film's scant yet misused budget might have been to send the cast through Acting School, although Ona Grauer's left breast did a good job, as did her right breast – and those slomo running scenes: priceless! I especially liked the final scene with Ona trying to act like she's been stabbed, but looking like she's just eaten ice cream too fast.

Attempting to do something more constructive with my time, I pulled out my Digitally-Restored, 35th Anniversary, Special Edition, Widescreen Anamorphic DVD of ""Manos: The Hands Of Fate."" Ah, yes! – the drugs were suitably brain-numbing - now HERE was some quality film-making…

(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)",Negative "Once a year ""comes"" a movie like that and makes things easy for you. You don't have make an effort to think it is good, it's just is. You enjoy it while you watch it, and you take it home with you. I can't say it is totally flawless, but it's near. Acting - great, story -interesting and with elements of suspense. It's a small family story, pretty much predictable, but it's not the secret itself that matters. it is the way the it takes the blind girl to reach it. I was impressed by the way the director portrayed their deep relationship (the blind girl and her cousin). The only thing I didn't like that much is the actress that played the mother, she was too tough and without necessity. Keren",Positive Bad acting. Bad writing. This was a poorly written film. It's too bad because it had some potential. It's not even close to American Pie or Something about Mary as previous comments might have you believe. Rent it at dollar night from you local video store if you're kind of bored.,Negative "I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. ""Put it together and what do you get?"" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, ""and they lived happily ever after."" not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like ""A twist in time"" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone.",Negative "MY LEFT FOOT, in my opinion, is a great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. The performances were smashing, the soundtrack was great, and the casting was perfect. I thought that Christy (Daniel Day-Lewis) was a very talented man, although I couldn't understand what he was saying most of the time. In addition, when he threw a tantrum, I got a little scared. Also, it's just so sad that he suffered from cerebral palsy. In conclusion, if you are a die-hard fan of Daniel Day-Lewis or like biopics, I highly recommend this great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. You're in for a real treat and a good time, so don't miss this one.",Positive "As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-",Positive "A suspenseful thriller that bears some resemblance to Deliverance as for scenery and setting. There are also some very innovatively shot scenes and good music, although the daftness and sometimes seemingly careless attitude of one of the characters is unfitting to the situation, although this is not a mayor problem. It also poses interesting questions about justness of revenge and limits of friendship.

",Positive "My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.

I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.

Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an ""intelligent"" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).

What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).

One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.

Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.

If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.",Negative "And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.

Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.

He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.

The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.

Check this out. It's good. *** outta ****",Positive "Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running ""Hammer House of Horror"" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title ""The House that Bled to Death"" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, ""Growing Pains"" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. ""The House that Bled to Death"" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans.",Positive "When I bought my Toy Story tape when it came out to Video after being released in theaters I saw a trailer for this that said from the creators of Toy Story. As soon as I saw that I knew this was gonna be a good feature! I was right! A Bug's Life like Toy Story is great story, great characters and great animation. My favorite characters are Dim the rhino Beetle voiced by Brad Garrett and Hemlich the Caterpillar voiced by the late Pixar Storyman Joe Ranft. My favorite scene is when Slim the walking stick (David Hyde Pierce) lifts up Hemlich trying to distract the Bird and Hemlich's like You hoo Mr. Early Bird. How about a nice tasting worm on a stick and Slim's like I'm going to snap! I'm going to snap! I just died laughing at that scene. Being a big fan of insects I think A Bug's Life is my favorite Pixar even though I know a lot of people consider it the worst Pixar film ever! I don't know how you could hate a Pixar film! I think they're all pretty good films! Good job PIXAR!",Positive "All good movies ""inspire"" some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that ""Gladiator"" wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...

Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.

Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.

All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end!",Positive "This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.",Positive "I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.",Negative "I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like ""The Man In The White Suit"" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.

Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.

""It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress,"" Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.

One problem with ""Man In The White Suit"" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, ""White Suit"" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.

The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going ""Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop"" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.

I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in ""Doctor Zhivago"" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against ""shabbiness and dirt"", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.

Supporting players make ""White Suit"" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of ""Bride Of Frankenstein"" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in ""Lawrence Of Arabia"". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.

But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy ""Whisky Galore"" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.

Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. ""Kind Hearts And Coronets"" and ""The Ladykillers"" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. ""White Suit"", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit.",Negative "I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.

I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.

Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV.",Positive "Silly movie is really, really funny. Yes, it's got its dead moments, it can be a bit too obvious, it declines a bit in the second half and the story is an incoherent mess, but it's laugh out loud funny all the way. And it's worth seeing just for Ed McMahon as a right wing kook. This movie is in the same class as Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, another incredibly funny, underappreciated film.",Positive "Sudden Impact is the best of the five Dirty Harry movies. They don't come any leaner and meaner than this as Harry romps through a series of violent clashes, with the bad guys getting their just desserts. Which is just the way I like it. Great story too and ably directed by Clint himself. Excellent entertainment.",Positive "I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).

I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...

Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the ""Nothing to Do With Reality"" department.",Negative "Yeh, I know -- you're quivering with excitement. Well, *The Secret Lives of Dentists* will not upset your expectations: it's solidly made but essentially unimaginative, truthful but dull. It concerns the story of a married couple who happen to be dentists and who share the same practice (already a recipe for trouble: if it wasn't for our separate work-lives, we'd all ditch our spouses out of sheer irritation). Campbell Scott, whose mustache and demeanor don't recall Everyman so much as Ned Flanders from *The Simpsons*, is the mild-mannered, uber-Dad husband, and Hope Davis is the bored-stiff housewife who channels her frustrations into amateur opera. One night, as Dad & the daughters attend one of Davis' performances, he discovers that his wife is channeling her frustrations into more than just singing: he witnesses his wife kissing and flirting with the director of opera. (One nice touch: we never see the opera-director's face.) Dreading the prospect of instituting the proceedings for separation, divorce, and custody hearings -- profitable only to the lawyers -- Scott chooses to pretend ignorance of his wife's indiscretions.

Already, the literate among you are starting to yawn: ho-hum, another story about the Pathetic, Sniveling Little Cuckold. But Rudolph, who took the story from a Jane Smiley novella, hopes that the wellworn-ness of the material will be compensated for by a series of flashy, postmodern touches. For instance, one of Scott's belligerent patients (Denis Leary, kept relatively -- and blessedly -- in check) will later become a sort of construction of the dentist's imagination, emerging as a Devil-on-the-shoulder advocate for the old-fashioned masculine virtues (""Dump the b---h!"", etc.). When not egged-on by his imaginary new buddy, Scott is otherwise tormented by fantasies that include his wife engaged in a three-way with two of the male dental-assistants who work in their practice. It's not going too far to say that this movie is *Eyes Wide Shut* for Real People (or Grown-Ups, at least). Along those lines, Campbell Scott and Hope Davis are certainly recognizable human beings as compared to the glamourpuss pair of Cruise and Kidman. Further, the script for *Secret Lives* is clearly more relevant than Kubrick's. As proof, I offer the depiction of the dentists' children, particularly the youngest one who is about 3 or 4 years old, and whose main utterance is ""Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! DAD!!!"" This is Family Life, all right, with all its charms.

The movie would make an interesting double-bill with *Kramer vs. Kramer*, as well. One can easily trace the Feminization of the American Male from 1979 to 2003. In this movie, Dad is the housewife as in *Kramer*, but he is in no way flustered by the domestic role, unlike Dustin Hoffman, who was too manly to make toast. Here, Scott gets all the plumb chores, such as wiping up the children's vomit, cooking, cleaning, taking the kids to whatever inane after-school activity is on the docket. And all without complaint. (And without directorial commentary. It's just taken for granted.)

The film has virtues, mostly having to do with verisimilitude. However, it's dragged down from greatness by its insistence on trendy distractions, which culminate in a long scene where a horrible five-day stomach flu makes the rounds in the household. We must endure pointless fantasy sequences, initiated by the imaginary ringleader Leary. Whose existence, by the way, is finally reminiscent of the Brad Pitt character in *Fight Club*. And this finally drives home the film's other big flaw: lack of originality. In this review, I realize it's been far too easy to reference many other films. Granted, this film is an improvement on most of them, but still. *The Secret Lives of Dentists* is worth seeing, but don't get too excited about it. (Not that you were all that excited, anyway. I guess.)",Negative "First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that ""it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time"". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).",Positive "It's amazing that actress P.J. Soles didn't become a big star after playing Riff Randall, #1 fan of the punk rock group the Ramones, in ""Rock 'n' Roll High School"". Soles is so exuberant, you don't mind she's obviously too old to still be in high school (that fact is leveled out by having all the kids look 24). The movie is a fast-paced frolic that doesn't cop-out; everything gets blown to smithereens at the end, and that's just as it should be. Mary Woronov, an innately kinky and funny presence as the Nazi-like principal, gets a great, one-of-a-kind bit at the beginning where Frisbees fly dangerously close to her head (how many takes did they use on that, or was it a fluke?) and Dey Young is very appealing as Soles' best, Kate Rambeau. The weakest link, ironically enough, in this ""High School"" chain-gang is the Ramones. They can't act, they're not funny, and their concert segment goes on too long. One Ramones song, ""I Want You Around"", is treated as a fantasy and is well captured; other incidental songs are good, particularly a rare Paul McCartney ballad heard near the beginning (""Did We Meet Somewhere Before?""). Great fun! *** from ****",Positive "I'm trying to decide if jumping into a wood chopper would be more enjoyable than this dreck. It finishes the destruction of what was once a classic couple of films. With Jedi, Menace, Clowns and Sith we have the death of Lucas' career. He wants us to swallow the Annakin is Vader nonsense? I never believed it was true. This film vindicates those feelings. The story hasn't worked since Phantom Moron, and each new film just piled the crap on until all that was left was a toy parade. I have to go. I know where some new rocks to throw are. You want spoilers? Here they come. Luke and Leia are NOT related. Vader is NOT their Father. Duke Countoo should have switched sides while he still could. Yoda has less verbal skills than Yogi Berra. His advice has never been any good to anybody. Obi Wan lied to Luke for the first two films. Annakin didn't build C3P0. He found him in the desert and lied to his Mom about putting him together from scratch. Chewbacca has fleas. This whole mess with Vader and the fall of the Republic can be blamed on that stupid b***h Amma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. If she had any brains she wouldn't have come within a light year of Annie, but she had told do what George Lucas wrote for her. What a dope!",Negative "The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today!

If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)!",Positive "A pretty memorable movie of the animals-killing-people variety, specifically similar to ""Willard"" in that it stars an aging character actor (in this case, a step down a bit to the level of Les Tremayne, who puts in the only distinguished performance I've seen him give) in a role as a man whose life is unbalanced and who subsequently decides to use his animal friends to exact revenge on those who have wronged him. Yes, this is one of those movies where pretty much everybody is despicable, so that you will cheer when they die, and really the selection of actors, locations, etc. couldn't be better at giving the film an atmosphere of shabby decadence.

Tremayne's character is ""Snakey Bender"", and he is certainly the most interesting thing about the movie: an aged snake collector who is obsessed with John Philip Souza's music. When the local preacher clamps down on his practice of collecting small animals from the local schoolchildren as bait for his snakes, and his friend gets married to a stripper (thus upsetting his ritual Wednesday night band concert) he goes on the rampage, in the process creating a memorable pile-up of clunkers beneath the cliff where he dumps the wrecks after disposing of their unfortunate owners. One amusing game you can play while watching ""Snakes"" is to place bets on which cars will land the farthest down the cliff.

All in all, very cheap and exploitative, but will really be a lot of fun for fans of these kinds of movies.",Positive "If you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.

As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self – this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.

What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the ""other"" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.

Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time.",Negative "Today's sci-fi thrillers are more like Rambo in outer-space with monster special effects (frequently ludicrous such as sounds of explosions in the vacuum of space). Though tame by today's standards, the special effects of ""Forbidden Planet"" were quite striking for their time. Even today, they still hold plausibility. Yet, the best part of the movie is perhaps the reason that radio thrillers still have appeal. Much of what was going on was left up to the imaginations of the audience. (What did the Krell creatures look like?) By having much of the framework of the story never divulged or only divulged in the end, the tension and suspense held throughout the movie. The ending was also very thought-provoking and satisfying. In my mind, this is still one of the best (if not the best) sci-fi films ever made.",Positive """The Golden Child"" was Eddie Murphy's first film since his megahit ""Beverly Hills Cop"". And even though it's not as good as ""Cop"", it's a fun comic adventure. Murphy stars as a finder of lost children who's assigned a most unusual case. His assignment: to find the title character, a child with mystical powers. This movie could have been titled ""Beverly Hills Cop and the Temple of Doom"" since parts of this movie plays like a Spielbergian adventure, kinda like an Indiana Jones comedy. It's got comedy with laughs, and adventure with special effects. Lots of fun.

*** (out of four)",Positive "What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.

Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.",Negative "This is a very amusing and sometimes quite creepy anthology, that if a bit short in the screenwriting department, more than makes up for the shortcoming in the acting, location work and overall exuberance. The best episodes of this are the first with Denholm Elliot playing a horror writer stalked by a character from his novel in the works ( a perfect example of the acting pulling this out of the merely pedestrian); the third, with Christopher Lee as a man terrified of his own daughter and the final episode with the late great Jon Pertwee as a pompous horror film star who gets more than just a new role on his latest project. The dialogue between Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt is sparkling and inspired, both obviously relishing the opportunity to really ham it up! Cushing is typically good in the weakest segment, which certainly isn't helped by the fact that the wax figure of the woman he's obsessed with down at the local wax museum, is anything but ""beautiful"" as we are told to believe she is! Someone of shocking beauty was needed and instead we're given a woman with a jaw of a turtle. Minor quibbles aside this movie and it's wonderful country house setting is one to catch when you can.",Positive "This is absolutely the best none-animated family film I've seen in quite a while, back to the first Homeward Bound. Paulie is a humerous movie about life through a parrot's POV. It's a really touching movie and ranks high among family films, up to Disney status, IMHO.",Positive "The only reason I rented this was because of the article in Fangoria Magazine. The article made this film look interesting. Well, it isn't. This was a very boring, amateurishly written and directed movie. All the actors in this movie are awful, except Faye Dunaway, who is always a joy to watch. But too much time was focused on Gina Phillips and her ridiculous encounters with ravens and Duilio Marzio. Marzio has such a thick Argentinean accent, you can only understand every couple of words he says. Also on hand is Nicholas Pauls, who plays the ultra-bland love interest to Gina Phillips. The bottom line: this movie is not scary. There is only one good scene and that is the last five to ten minutes of the movie. I would have given this one star, but I gave it three just because I like Faye Dunaway so much. But even she wasn't that great in this.",Negative "After watching ""The Bodyguard"" last night, I felt compelled to write a review of it.

This could have been a pretty decent movie had it not been for the awful camera-work. It was beyond annoying. The angles were all wrong, it was impossible to see anything, especially during the fight sequences. The closeups were even horrible.

The story has Sonny Chiba hiring himself out as a bodyguard to anyone willing to lead him to the top of a drug ring. He is approached by Judy Lee, who is never quite straight with Chiba. Lee's involvement in the drug ring is deeper than Chiba thought, as the Mob and another gang of thugs are after her.

The story was decent, and despite horrible dubbing, this could have been a good movie. Given better direction and editing, I'm sure this would have been a classic Kung Foo movie. As it is, it's more like another cheesy 70's action movie.

Note: The opening sequence has a quote familiar to ""Pulp Fiction"" fans, and then continues to a karate school in Times Square that is in no way related to the rest of the movie.

Rating: 4 out of 10",Negative "It should be against the law not to experience this extremely funny stand up show with Eddie Murphy. I have never seen anything like it.

Murphy goes on for almost 70 minutes about dicks, pussy, tits and insaults so many famous people including his own ""family"". Among the people who gets it by murphy are: Elvis, Mr.T, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger, Luther Vandross and James Brown. I have seriously never laughed so hard of anything my entire life. I mean, when a person doesn't know who Mr. T is, but still laughs so hard of Murphy as Mr. T, there's something about it. At the time I saw the show I couldn't remember who Mr T. was but still laughed. Now I know who he is and that just makes it so much more funny. Because that's what Eddie do - he can make those impressions so good that it don't matter who the hell he's trying to do, it's still hilarious. And on top of that, we learn that Murphy actually is a very good singer. Please watch it..",Positive "I saw Arthur(the TV series and the books)years ago and never was fond of the show very much(if you're a fan of this cartoon,sorry if I'm spoiling it for you,but this is actually what I think).Lots of people liked it,but I didn't.

The school kids characters seemed to fought all the time(especially Arther and DW),they were nice to each other frequently,but gradually I got tired of Arthur's complaining attitude towards everyone and his sister DW(however the name was spelled),and DW was an ADHD(or ADD)-like 4-year-old sister of Arthur who was sometimes demanding(which could be why Arthur got annoyed with what her routines were,like her imaginary friend and her stuffed animal collection etc.),Arthur's friends acted like teenagers instead of what they were like in the Arthur books,and the parents,well,they didn't care very much.

The greatest cartoon was Rocko's Modern Life,not Arthur(no offense).",Negative "I stumbled on this late last night n TCM.

Hadn't seen it since it came out originally, but had never forgotten it.

I had completely forgotten how gorgeous and talented Signe Hasso was when she was still young, ditto for Shelly Winters before she balooned out.

Ronald Coleman, though, was the quintessential state actor of his time - I had read Othello in high school English - and HATED it. After seeing ""A Double Life"" I read it again and finally understood what the play was about.

The Gordon/Kanin writing team was at its peak when this script was done -

A movie well worth remembering and rewatching,",Positive "It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good ""B"" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.",Negative "I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts.",Positive "A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.

Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.

There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.",Negative "I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie!",Positive "I had watched several days film shooting of this movie that summer,the end result was just two scenes in the movie. The location was Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. Bring the wagon,stop the wagon etc . So this Dakota youth looked forward to seeing the movie and was not disappointed. The local buffalo herd was being culled so the shooting scenes were for real. (yes Doris, animals were hurt during filming) I think the ending was copied by Jack Nicholson in the Shining? A great western/social comment from the 50's. This should be in the same class as High Noon for real western drama or used as a social statement like Blackboard Jungle or Rebel Without A Cause was for 50's youth.",Positive "Bloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.

The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc.

The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The ""sex scene."" WTF indeed. -The credit ""And Michael Ironside as Muco."" The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.

Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the ""chestburster"" scene.",Negative "I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.

* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...",Negative "When the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine ""Slapstick Encyclopedia"" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.

The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old ""Babe"" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's ""Slapstick Encyclopedia"" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff.",Negative "This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.",Negative "The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny.

On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.

Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.",Negative "In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.

Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.

The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.

But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.

So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.",Negative "I don't pretend to be an authority on actors who have played Othello, but I've never witnessed a performance of the play, on film or on stage, wherein Othello was portrayed with more humanity and authenticity.

According to the biographical notes, Fishburne never received any professional training as an actor. Perhaps this explains why his acting, in this beautifully edited film, comes over as so believable and so powerful. Instead of chewing the scenery in the approved fashion for such high-powered roles, Fishburne's portrayal is focused more on Othello's love for his wife, and on his profound sadness at her supposed betrayal, than on violence and vengeance. In a word, the performance is understated, and made far more impressive by Fishburne's extremely intelligent interpretation than it otherwise would have been.

The acting throughout is superb, and the (abridged) speeches gain grace from their light editing. (Even Shakesspeare, after all, can be improved upon, now and again -- and if that be treason, make the most of it!",Positive "The fact that this film was put out on DVD still formatted-to TV and with a fuzzy picture really annoyed a lot of film purists......and rightly so. This deserves a lot better treatment.

The story is about a street performer who needs a son to pass on his craft (the rules of the day) and winds up with a little girl instead (not the conventional way) ....and the problems that ensue afterward. The old man had bought the kid at a slave auction and soon discovers the kid is not a boy, which he obviously thought was the case.

The old man ""Bianlian Wang (Xu Zhu)is kind of funny-looking with a missing front tooth and an infectious grin. The little girl ""Doggie"" (Zhou Renying) is a cutie. The rest of the story is how the two manage after that. I usually like a nice sentimental ending but this gets a bit carried away in the final 15 minutes.

Overall, it's involving story complete with drama, suspense, humor and sadness. Just don't expect a good quality picture for the money you are spending on the DVD. Until it comes out on widescreen, rent it.",Positive "Saw this today with my 8 year old. I thought it was cute. I agree with the other poster that it wasn't anything like the book that I can remember, but we still enjoyed it. All of the kids are pretty good and all in all pretty entertaining. Billy is the new kid who accepts a dare by the school bully to eat 10 worms in a day. If he loses he has to walk down the hall at school with worms in his pants. The beginning of the movie is set up to show that Billy has a VERY weak stomach and pukes at almost anything. Hilarity ensues with a bunch of different way to cook the worms. Good message about standing up to bullies and of course, a sappy happy ending.",Positive "Good Deaths. Good Mask. Cool Axe. Good Looking Girls....But Watch Out!!! No Plot and Little Scares Completely lower it's Standards. They Tried to make an ""I Know what you Did Last Summer"", but ended up making A ""Scream"". But Hey, What do people Expect From a Horror Movie? Answers Totally Vary. Rent It If You Want, but I Regret Ever Seeing It.",Negative "I finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....

nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward.

There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly.

Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David!",Negative "Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this.",Negative "A very gritty, gutsy portrayal of a part of world war 2 history, that most of us in the U.S. had/have no idea ever occurred. I would love to have this on video. It only was shown on t.v. one time as far as I know, back in 89or 90. I have asked around for this movie, and most video stores don't even know about it. Great actresses all around, Wish that I could see it again. Top notch series.",Positive "This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise ""history"". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as ""Creative Consultant"" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty.",Positive "On the night of his bachelor party, Paul Coleman (Jason Lee) meets the gorgeous dancer Becky (Julia Stiles) in the bar, they drink a lot together and in the next morning, he wakes up with her on the bed. His future mother-in-law calls him and informs that his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) might be arriving in his apartment, and he desperately asks Becky to leave his place in a hurry. Sooner, he finds that her has crabs, and later, in the preparation of his wedding dinner party, he realizes that Becky is the cousin of Karen. This is the beginning of a very funny comedy, with hilarious situations. The first attraction of this movie certainly is the central trio of actresses and actor. Julia Stiles and Selma Blair, who are excellent actresses and extremely gorgeous, and Jason Lee, who is amazingly funny, have good performances. I laughed a lot along the story, but there are some scenes that are really hilarious. For example, when Paul finds Becky in his bed; when he finds her paints; his imagination in many situations; in the drugstore, trying to buy and get explanations about the crab medicine; most of the scenes of his neighbor, the minister; when Karen calls the department store; or when the police finds a suspect of assaulting Paul. I could number many other scenes, but better off the reader rent or buy this movie and have lots of fun. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil):""Louco Por Elas"" (""Crazy For Them"")",Positive "I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.

Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.

I hope the creators/""actors"" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.

See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.",Negative "this could be one of the worse movies i've ever seen. i don't see how could this ever be described as a horror movie, or even a thriller? its more like a lumbering drama. the scary music is EXCELLENT but since there weren't any scary situations the director thought it would be a good idea to use it for everyday activities like taking a dump or walking down stairs. the movie had so much potential. they had beautiful cinematography (sp?) and interesting characters, but it seemed as if the writers assumed you already knew them. they would undergo peculiar activities without explanation or even a clue at what they meant. this is simply one of those movies that says its about one thing and it something totally different.",Negative "I wouldn't go so far as to not recommend this movie, since the only problems I have with it are due to an overexposure to the plot devices used in the movie - the sort of things common to every kids movie ever made it seems. That doesn't make it bad, just not something I'd go far.

It is a little saccharine, so I might say that for the most part anyone looking for something with a little more wit could be disappointed in an obviously for-kids movie like this.

However, all of that goes out the window when that squirrel (the one in all the trailers) comes on-screen. His time is limited, but it seems apparent that the decision makers had the wisdom to tell these guys 'hey, could you stick in a little more squirrel?' every time it's getting intolerably dull. That doesn't save the movie, but you can leave saying 'at least there was one aspect where I couldn't stop laughing.'

And of course, visually it won't disappoint, but that's almost a given with Pixar flicks. Of all of their stuff, I'd put this at the bottom...but that isn't in itself bad.",Positive "The orange tone to everything was just yucky. Oh yeah, the main character lives in a ghetto that is all orange-tinted with orange-tinted people. Meanwhile, to mentally escape from this crushing poverty of the body, she plays a full-immersion video game (which sucks in that no rules are clear and no logic follows the gameplay). She apparently earns an income playing the game but she is revealed to not be an employee of the game company?. Lots of non-speaking pauses later the story drags on slowly. She uses a glitchy orange computer interface with an operating interface that is so visually annoying and I can only suspect a Microsoft future release.

Meanwhile, I the viewer, ask basically why she is wasting her precious time in some moronic game when she barely has the necessities of life? Oh yeah, playing games is fun, but what is the point when you're almost starving? While she is piddling her life away playing some lousy even-more-orange-tinted lame full-immersion video game her dog runs off (probably looking for an owner who pays at least a moment of attention to it and feeds it regularly) or is stolen from the woman (while she is ignoring her lousy orange-tinted reality).

Meanwhile she obsesses over some game her game-playing team lost the entire uninteresting movie. Yawn. So she wants to be the best of the best, go get them Ash Catchem (got to bore us all). Golly, this main character sucks as a human being as well and has no redeeming qualities aside from her physical beauty (which she could barter for some manner to escape her crushing poverty).

So she reaches the ""Real"" level and it, at least, not sucks horribly and she is sent to kill a former comatose teammate mentally living in the ""Real"" level. Finally the sucky boring bland orange-tinted movie is no longer a tedious chore to watch, but has the potential to say something along the lines ""the main character is trapped in imaginary computer-generated poverty and she is actually in the real world now"". Perhaps she will do the murder deed and live in the real world now? Well, she kills the guy and he vanishes in a digital effect. Wow! Thanks idiotic director. You suck, you suck so very much, director.

Here the director had an iota of a chance to redeem himself slightly by burying this lousy lame moronic cruddy movie with a philosophical twist.

The director could have said, ""The REAL WORLD is there and if you live in it and contribute to it to make it better, it won't be some cruddy orange-tinted poverty land."" A clever way to make this suck-tacular movie a agonizingly slow lesson on basic civic pride (for the 1% of the viewers that haven't found something actually entertaining to watch at this point or are movie-masochists).

Nope, director. The director had to screw this all up by tossing in some cruddy digital effect and ruin all chances of redemption for this awfully lousy movie which was a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of viewer trust.

After that, it ends. Good riddance. I hope the director chokes on it. I'm putting this HACK on my ""avoid at all costs"" list for any other films his name is attached to.",Negative "So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like ""Hatred of a Minute"" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, ""Hatred"" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not ""Evil Dead"". Bruce has never tried to bank on his ""ash"" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with ""Hatred"" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with ""Hatred"", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, ""Hatred"" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and ""Hatred"" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out.",Positive "I went into a Video Store and looked around to find some Horror Movies, after about 30 minutes I just rushed and picked out a few. I stumbled upon ""Masters of Horror"" which contained ""Pro-Life"" and ""Right to Die"". They seemed OK, same-old cheesy Horror crap, but I was interested for some reason. It said about Pro-Life on the case about being a classic, a return to form for John Carpenter (I loved his ""The Thing"", so I thought this would be good) and all that. So I turned it on thinking it would be something great and interesting, I was very wrong... It started off casual, just a girl running through a Forest, scared of something. A car stops and picks her up (just so being the people she needed to see, amazing?) They take her back to some Clinic and examine her, at the sametime all this is happening her Father appears at the gates and they don't allow him in, he isn't aloud near the area. Most likely from something he would of done in the past, but you don't know of any of this at the moment. He really does not want his Daughter in this place, an Abortion center. He is very strongly against such acts, believing it's sickening and not what ""God"" would want. He ""supports"" what I heard is called ""Pro-Life"". Acting against Abortions and going to extremes to allow the Babies to be born, they are sick. They don't like the Life of an unborn being taken, yet they've killed Humans in the past to allow the Birth? Justice is only a figment of the mind. Anyway, back on track, after the girl is examined they find out shes pregnant, but far ahead than what she should be. She is only a few weeks pregnant, but is months ahead. She keeps telling them they wont understand her, and that she wants an Abortion and all, but finally tells the truth that she was raped by a Demon from Hell, and that her Father wants this baby (but believes ""God"" wants this baby, not who truly does). He gets his 3 Sons (they arm themselves with Pistols and Shotguns), and begin to make they're way into the Clinic (shooting down anyone who won't co-operate). The head of the Clinic, who must of had trouble with them in the past, is well prepared this time. Ends up killing one the Fathers Sons, but in the end gets shot a few times (wearing a bullet proof jacket). The Father then performs what he believes is done to the Women. He cuts a hole, where the Vagina would be if he we're a Female, and sticks some sort of sucking thing up there and sucks out all this blood. Whilst all this is happening, the girl gives birth to some Demonic baby with many legs, and some Demon raises from beneath the Earth (not in the same room) and starts looking for its child. The Father sees this later on, and starts questioning why this happened, he did what he was told to do, and doesn't understand why it's like this. The Demon had killed both of his Sons earlier, and now goes for Father... Whilst the girl kills the baby, and the Demon carries it away (not in the same scene).

Yeah, it probably sounds pretty cool, and a thrilling Horror Movie, but it isn't. The acting is horrible and lacks enthusiasm, the script is boring and not even creative, they choose the wrong characters and don't even build on them; just everything put together, all the small parts, don't even add up to something great, a waste of time. I wouldn't classify this as a Horror, though it has elements of Horror, they ultimately fail at what they try to succeed. It felt more like a ""Beginners"" Short-Movie, than by John Carpenter.

Sorry for my lack of information, and detailed review, I just didn't have the time to waste to write something exciting. Also sorry if my spelling and details are incorrect, I couldn't really be bothered to research anything.",Negative "The part of The Grinch was made for Jim Carrey and I was extremely impressed with his performance. Not being a great fan of his I was apprehensive but pleasantly surprised with the outcome. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who was the cutest little girl I have seen on the screen for a long time and she showed a maturity beyond her years in her acting skills. I was even drawn to tears at one point! I've never read the Dr Seuss book of the tale so I didnt know what to expect, the humour was quite dark. Overall,I enjoyed the film (apart from the songs!) and would recommend it, for family viewing especially.",Positive "This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.",Positive "Not for people without swift mind or without a drop of Balkan blood in their veins. If You don't have any of these You can not understand it. And if you don't understand, you can't enjoy it. :) For example if you think Picasso is a name of a car produced by Citroen, probably if you see a Picasso's painting you just will walk by it, deciding that it's a trash-work of some street painter. :) So do not judge, before trying to understand it :) In the end i think it's a MUST for every one with open minds. Still my N1 remains The Shawshank Redemption! And remember that not all things can be put in frames. Because there are things in this world, that any frame just won't fit.",Positive "I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.

The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like ""I Am Trying To Break Your Heart"", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.

Both bands in the start of their careers promised to ""make a revolution"" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of ""record industry"". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.

First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.

First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.

Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.

Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: ""... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?"" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.

Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...",Positive "I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under ""new releases"" and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, ""What a great idea!"" Plus there's a ""Welcome to Oakland"" sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.

Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of ""urban culture"" boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word ""fuck"" is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.

The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely ""urban culture"" zombie flick, but ""Hood of the Living Dead"" doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.",Negative "there are those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream ""i want that one and a half hours of my life back""...thats pretty much what this is.

dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.

this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad

if i could go negative ratings, i would",Negative "The author of ""Nekromantik"", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, ""Der Todesking"" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called ""The Brotherhood of the 7th Day"", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely ""normal"" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.

The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.

Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, ""art film"" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.

Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.

This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.

The main theme of the movie, ""Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III"" was released in a limited 666-piece 8"" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting ""The Nekromantik"" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended!",Positive "The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live')",Positive "Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.

None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.

In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else.",Positive "Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the ""claustrophobic"" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.",Negative "I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.

It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...

This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.

Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.

This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!",Negative "This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again",Positive "May contain minor spoilers.

Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.

Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.

What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.

Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.",Positive "Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.

The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.

My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.

I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.

Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.

The producers should be ashamed of themselves.",Negative "I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.

Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.

Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.

Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.

Finally, there's the ""ghost"" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.

All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID.",Negative """The Notorious Bettie Page"" is about a woman who always wanted to be an actress but instead became one of the most famous pin up girls in the history of America. Bettie Page played by Gretchen Mol was one of the first sex icons in America. The type of modeling Bettie Page took part in included nudity and bondage which lead to a U.S Senate investigation in the 1950s.

Walking out of the film, all I could think about was how far we have come in terms of pornography since the 1950s. You can go on the internet now and find some of most disturbing and shocking images ever shot, that the footage questioned in ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" seems almost childlike and innocent. Most of the footage including the bondage did not feature nudity when Bettie Page was involved yet today we have sick images where we can see women having sex with animals. I find that maybe the envelope has been pushed a little too far since the 1950s because looking at this movie in terms of today's pornography, it was very tastefully done.

To be honest, I was pretty impressed with ""The Notorious Bettie Page,"" I found the film to be very well done and interesting. The movie is exactly what the trailer leads you to believe it will be and is a very interesting look at one of the first female sex icons in America. Gretchen Mol looks just like Bettie Page and gives a very fine performance. I also thought that since the movie was shot in black and white it made the film seem realistic because it made the audience believe they were watching a film created in the late 1950s.

My only complaint about the film was the running time, there seemed to be a few scenes that were cut and seemed to be a little shorter than they should have been. I looked this up and it seems that 10 minutes was cut from the film since its original showing at the Toronto Film Festival. Also the ending was pretty tame and I was expecting a little more from it or maybe some paragraphs to come on the screen to tell the audience more about Bettie Page's life where the film left off. Those are my only two complaints about the film other than that the directing was solid, the acting was great especially Gretchen, and the writing was good.

Mary Harron, who directed ""American Psycho"", which is one of my favorite films, is the director and writer of ""The Notorious Bettie Page."" I feel that Mary is a very talented director who knows how to create a setting and create great movies based on characters because like ""Psycho"", Bettie Page is a character study and a fine one at that. Harron captures the 40s and 50s with ease as well as all the characters. She is a very talented director who I hope will be around for many years to come.

Bottom Line: ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is definitely worth a look. It's a very interesting story that shows how far America, as well as the world, has come in terms of pornography. The film also provides a fine performance by Gretchen Mol who literally nails the role of Bettie Page on the head. And top it off with a talented director who was able to capture the look and feel of a previous era and you have a good movie on your hands. Sadly, this film is probably going to flop since not many besides people who grew up in this era will show interest in the film but I think it's worth checking out.

MovieManMenzel's final rating for ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" is a 8/10. It's an interesting character study about one of the most famous pin up girls and sex icons in American history.",Positive "This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment.",Positive "a friend of mine bought this (very cheaply) and decided to give it to me as a birthday present. i thought i'd never watch it 'cause i knew it was a joke and the cover of the DVD looked pathetic, but then my friends and i got really bored and watched it. from start till finish! i know quite an accomplishment but it really is a masterpiece. it's hard to describe. you should see it, it's a real lesson on what people are capable of when they believe they're creative and smart and really aren't. The ""acting"" is sous-terrain (you can actually see the ""leading lady"" laugh on some occasions, she's definitely the worst). the ""story"" is to stupid to be summed up and really everything in this film sucked. please, pay special attention to ""the sheriff"". the guy is an adult and therefor has absolutely no excuse to be involved in this. he's extremely bad as well. whatever it did have some hilarious moments. check it out, haha",Negative "Why aren't more films (especially American) more like Meatball Machine?

This is my first official on-line review and I am charged with ""electrical ecstasy"" after having chosen ""Meatball Machine"" as my first endeavor. This is a review, so I'll try to stick to mere reflection and gut emotion.

I mean, this is one creative piece of work even though it is clearly inspired by the now classic TETSUO! So what if it's not all original? I own both of these films and though Tetsuo is one strange son of a bitch, Meatball Machine is far superior and can be sat through without the strong desire to indulge in a dose of mind altering drugs to clarify film significance. Meatball Machine is as elaborate in it's story as it is in its high influx of blood and gore. Thank you Jesus for Japanese Cinema!

Simply put, the last time my dreams were overrun by visions of horror happened after watching Nightmare on Elm Street when I was 7 or so. I could picture in my dreams a tongue coming out of a telephone for weeks on end. This time (at 31) my dreams were pleasantly awe inspiring.

In this film human bodies are host to Aliens whose sole purpose is to try and fulfill their never ending quench for human flesh and blood. Humans become flesh eating cyborgs!!! There's more!!! Fight scenes!! Great Music!! Great point-of-view shots! Decent acting by the woman Cyborg (at least better than her male counterpart). The fight seen in the end is worth watching ten or twenty times.

Oh, and did I forget to mention it's a Love story! Wow, I hate love stories but this takes the cake!

I can't wait to have friends over to watch this film once more just to see the reaction on their faces. Sadly, I took time to write this review because I'm afraid most friends and family wont understand Meatball Machine. The truth is America as a whole is not prepared for Meatball Machine.

Lastly, My wife walked in while I was watching the climactic fight scene at the end and she was speechless. Normally she says something like ""why are you watching that junk?"" This time she had nothing to say. I was glad!

This is not junk. This isn't just SPLATTER (splatter for the sake of splatter is also great). This is Art my friends. Art.

CHACHO",Positive "A lot has already been said on this movie and I' d like to join those who praised it. It's a highly unique film which uses elements of different genres: drama, comedy, gangster film without making a mess of it. At points you just laugh out loud, at other points you feel for the characters whose mistakes and failures you watch. Sabu's genius can be shown with regard to some sequences of the movie. One is that where all three men chasing one another have an erotic day dream about a young woman that they just passed by on the street. This sequence is beautifully done and illustrates the characters of all three runners very well. It is erotic and funny at the same time. Another example of Sabu's genius is the part of the film where the runners get tired. First one of them, the typical loser among the three guys, hallucinates that the woman that left him for someone else is back again and you see them dancing with one another and in the next shot him dancing with himself which is deeply moving. All of the runners get to this point where they think that have something back they lost or are on track again. And at one part of the movie they stop chasing each other, running in line, just laughing.So here is it all the beauty and the ludicrousness of what we call life which Sabu manages to show throughout the film. His characters fail (do they at the end?) but he doesn't rob them of their dignity. ""Monday"" and ""Postman Blues"" that do justice to Sabu's claim that he is a genius. Go watch them!

",Positive "I am not going to lie, this is a great movie. I saw it about 4 months ago at my local theatre. I saw it a second time, and I was somewhat bored in the slow scenes. Sid (the sloth) is not all that flattering, but Diego (a mountain lion, I think) is really good in the movie. The animation is outstanding, and the story has a touching ending. It is worth taking kids 10 and under to, but teens would probably find it a tad bit boring. Also, the uniqueness in the characters is so interesting. Like I said, it is a pretty good movie, but I would rate ""Toy Story 2"" or ""Shrek"" higher. 8/10",Positive "This warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.

The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.

The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.",Negative "The film was okay, quite entertaining. The cast was pretty good, and I'll second what the comment before me mentioned - Glenn Quinn was outstanding and he alone is reason enough to watch this movie. He played the selfish ""evil"" friend and manager of the band brilliantly!

There are a lot of songs performed by ""Beyond Gravity"" in this film, but this doesn't really come as a surprise considering the film is a VH1 production. However, if the soft rock/ pop music isn't to someone's liking one might as well flash forward those scenes.

The plot of a band trying to make it to the top in L.A. but having to overcome many obstacles on the way isn't too original, but quite entertaining, with some surprising plot turns here and there.",Positive "An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can!",Positive "Mark Frechette stars as Mark, a college radical leftist. Mark is accused of killing a cop during a campus riot, and he flees all the way to the desert. He does so by stealing a small plane at the local airport, and flies it himself.

Once out flying over the desert, Mark spots a car from the air. A young woman named Daria steps out, and sees Mark circling in the plane. Mark swoops the plane very low several times, causing Daria to duck or get hit. When he lands, he becomes acquainted with Daria, who is strangely charmed by Mark's aerial highjinks.

After engaging in soulful conversation for hours, Mark and Daria get naked, and make love in the sand. But with Mark evading the law, they realize that he needs to keep running. So Mark and Daria's brief tryst is quite poignant, because it doesn't get to develop into a full-blown romance.

Zabriski Point was the Eraserhead of the early 70s. Both films have a rambling, vague quality, along with complicated meanings and characters. Frechette was as reckless in person, as his character was in this film. A few years after making Zabriski Point, Frechette robbed a bank in real life. While serving his prison sentence, Mark died an ignoble death. He was killed by a 150 lb. weight, which fell on him when he was weightlifting.

The best thing about this movie was the splendid cinematography, and special visual effects. The incredible, slow-motion scenes of debris floating in the air after an explosion, were a stroke of genius. Although not as ground-breaking a film as Easy Rider was, Zabriski Point still resonated with the early 70s counterculture. I recommend it, for those who like avant-guard films which showcase the upheaval, of the youth rebellion during the early 70s.",Positive "I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.

From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.)

I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers!",Positive "The film opens with Bill Coles (Melvyn Douglas) telling a story about how his best friend--make that client--Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) and his family are tightly packed into a small New York apartment, with not enough closet space and way too few bathrooms. When Jim's wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy), wants to renovate the apartment, advertising exec Jim falls in love with (or falls for!) an ad for a house. Once he's purchased the house, bills and frustration pile up incessantly as everything that can go wrong with the building of Jim's 'dream house' goes wrong.

One of three collaborations between Grant and Loy, this is a charming little comedy--not very taxing, with no real great message, but a great way to spend an hour or two. The laughs are there right from the start, when the alarm clock goes off and Jim tries to shut it off, only to be thwarted at every turn by Muriel. The timing and delivery of the comedic lines and situations can only be given by a couple of seasoned pros, and that's just what Grant and Loy give us: polished performances, simple chemistry, and a lot of fun. Myrna Loy is in a pretty thankless role (it's evident that Grant's character Jim gets the lion share of the lines and the acting, and Grant, as always, pulls both off with remarkable aplomb), but she gives Muriel a colour, life and bite that only Myrna Loy can give a character. Melvyn Douglas plays wry amusement to perfection as well, never hitting a single wrong note.

One of my favourite scenes has definitely got to be when Bill gets himself locked in the 'store room', and Jim goes to 'save' him... only to get everyone trapped inside! Every little problem that pops up for the Blandings renovation project--including petty jealousy and an ad campaign for 'Wham'--seems to bring together everything that *could* go wrong with building a new house but makes it believable and an enjoyable watch. 8/10",Positive "Life Begins is a wonderful pre-code film starring some of the best of the era. It is set in the maternity ward of a hospital, particularly in the room for the women expected to have trouble. In it is an older woman, a tough unwed mother (Glenda Farrell), a frail young woman, an Italian woman, and the main character (Loretta Young) who is spending 20 years in prison for murder. Her husband (Eric Linden) is at the hospital at every second aching to know that everything will be okay. Aline MacMahone plays the nurse who is great at her job.

This film is highly interesting and entertaining. It isn't terribly shocking in any way, but it is interesting to see such a neglected subject on the silver screen. The acting is brilliant all around. Loretta Young is gorgeous here in her prime. Eric Linden comes out of nowhere and is sincere as can be. His innocence is reminiscent of Michael J. Fox. Glenda Farrell is great as always, a staple of pre-codes and for good reason.",Positive "Presenting Lily Mars (MGM, 1943) is a cute film, but in my opinion it could have been better. Judy Garland is great as always, but some scenes in the film seem out of place and the romance between her and Van Heflin develops all too quickly.

I mean, one minute he's ready to beat her butt, but the next minute he falls in love with her. I believe that this production, the film editing, and the script ( even though the photography was great, the scenery was nice and the costumes were nice as well) could have been a little better. It feels as though the production was too rushed.

The supporting cast was good as well, especially little Janet Chapman as the second youngest daughter daughter Rosie. She at the age of 11, looks really cute and it's a shame that she didn't develop into a teenage comic actress. She's much better in this film than in her previous films as Warner Brothers in the late 1930's (except for Broadway Musketeers 1938, she's really good in that), when they tried to make her into a Shirley Temple/Sybil Jason hybrid. Overall, this film could better, but in the end, Judy gave it her all.",Positive "Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.

The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.

By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.

",Positive "This version of the Charles Dickens novel features George C Scott as the Scrooge. Fine casting, especially the choice of Scott, who plays the role to the hilt..a fine cast supports him in the very good adaption. A Modern day holiday classic on a scale of one to ten..9",Positive "This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being ""people of color"" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction.",Positive "In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a ""thinking man's horror film."" Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.

It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.

The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.

The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.

Even in the dream world things are boring.

A short no on this one.",Negative "The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd.

Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.

For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.

This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.",Negative "Always enjoy the great acting of Drew Barrymore and her great performance in this film, where she plays a very very complicated young gal,(Holly Gooding),""Skipped Parts"",2000, who leaves New York and travels to California and shares an apartment with a up and coming writer, George Newbern,(Patrick Highsmith),""Far Harbor"",'96. Many strange things start to happen to Holly and she seeks to find her brother in a mental institution after he killed her father. If you look close enough you will actually see the mother of Drew Barrymore in real life appear as her mother in this picture. If it was not for the good acting of Drew Barrymore and George Newbern, this film should be seen only on Halloween Night! However, it sure has it's surprises in the END!!!!",Positive "Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.

The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the ""once"" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars.",Negative "In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other ""Warren Bank"" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.

Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit ""Emma"" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, ""Reducing"" and ""Politics"" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. ""Prosperity"" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped… apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.

**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster",Negative "If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful).

The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.

This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath.

I loved every minute of it.",Negative "I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.

I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of ""leather"", which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.

Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.

Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!

We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun!",Positive "The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...

Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.

Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.

Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.

The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.",Negative "The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.

Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think ""martian""! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?

Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.

Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.

Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.",Negative I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable,Negative "Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).

Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.

I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's ""Spaghetti Western"" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.

As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.

So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.

By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.

A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films!",Negative "THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code)

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)

Sound format: Mono

(35mm and 70mm release prints)

A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.

Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than ""Bird"" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.

Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that ""Cat"" failed to emulate the runaway success of ""Bird"" when released in 1971.

(English version)",Negative "Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended.",Positive "This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a ""bravo"" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately.",Positive "What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about ""infinity land""? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.

Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.

Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?

What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..

Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?

Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.

Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.",Negative "Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.",Negative "When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures (""Rosemary's Baby"", for example) have accomplished this; others (like ""Necromancy"") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)",Negative This is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen!! There was absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. I have seen some bad movies but this one takes it. There is no plot and most of the movie you are either fast forwarding the movie to get it done faster or you are wondering what the hell is going on because you can't seriously think that someone thought of this movie and you are watching it. I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit through this painful hour and a half. Please take my advice and DO NOT WATCH this movie for I know you will think it is the biggest waste of time you have ever spent in your life.,Negative "Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was ""Marion""?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.

That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. ""A Man Betrayed"", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.

This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.

That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made ""A Man Betrayed"" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10",Negative "I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.

The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd ""Suzanne"", another twit. ""Donald"" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.

The film would have been charming with Guiness and the ""older woman"" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in ""The Card"", a little known but worthwhile film.",Negative "As a biographical film, ""The Lady With Red Hair"" (the story of how director /producer/playwright David Belasco transformed notorious society divorcee Mrs. Leslie Carter into an international stage star) is certainly not in a league with that other Warner's biopic of similar vintage, ""Yankee Doodle Dandy"" (what is?), but ""Lady"" is an enjoyable film in its own right--AND shares quite a few traits in common with the Cagney classic.

Like ""Yankee Doodle Dandy,"" ""The Lady With Red Hair"" brims over with old -time show-business flavor. (Among other things, both films feature delicious theatrical boarding-house sequences as well as the inevitable scenes set backstage and in theatrical managers' offices.) Also, in ""Lady"" as in the Cohan biopic, the supporting cast is made up of familiar and beloved character actors of the period, all doing the sort of top-notch work we remember them for.

Need I add that, again like ""Yankee Doodle Dandy,"" ""The Lady With Red Hair"" doesn't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story? But, also like ""Dandy,"" ""Lady"" does manage--gloriously!--to convey the esssence of its show-business-giant hero's larger-than-life personality. Everyone knows that Cagney limned Cohan for all time in his brilliant and affectionate portrayal in ""Yankee Doodle Dandy""--but few moviegoers realize that Claude Rains did a similar service for David Belasco in ""The Lady With Red Hair""- -and did it with a panache that almost equals Cagney's.

Rains-as-Belasco perfectly captures that legendary showman's galvanic personality in all its outsized glory. Rains gives a tremendously enjoyable , superbly observed, and remarkably true-to-life performance as the man all Broadway once called ""The Wizard."" To watch Claude Rains in action (looking in every shot as if he's having a helluva good time!) in ""The Lady With Red Hair"" is to see David Belasco leap to life on film as if he can't wait to shake things up on the Main Stem once again.

",Positive "This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.

Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.

Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.

The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.

Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.

Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.

As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.

The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...

Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...",Positive "Friz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born.",Negative "This film aka ""the four hundred blows"" is a mistranslation.Faire les 400 coups"" means""to live a wild life. As a French,I'm stunned when I see the popularity of this good ,but by no means outstanding film. 1.It's not the first film of the ""nouvelle vague"" move;check Agnes Varda's ""la pointe courte"",(1956)Alain Resnais's ""Hiroshima mon amour""(1958),Claude Chabrol's ""le beau serge""(1958) are anterior .Historically,""les 400 coups "" comes after. 2.The ""nouvelle vague"" was sometimes ponderous and hard on their predecessors:Overnight,Julien Duvivier,Henri-George Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara ,Yves allégret and a lot of others were doomed to oblivion.THis selfishness and this contempt is typically ""nouvelle vague"".You 've never heard (or read) the great generation of the thirties (Renoir,Carné,Grémillon,Duvivier already,Feyder) laugh at ,say,Maurice Tourneur or Max Linder.So,thanks to Truffaut and co,some people will never discover some gems of the French fifties or forties(Duvuvier's ""sous le ciel de Paris"",Autant-Lara's ""douce"",Yves Allégret's ""une si jolie petite plage "" and ""manèges"").THe novelle vague clique went as far as saying that William Wyler,Georges Stevens and Fred Zinemann were worthless! 3.""Les 400 coups "" is technically rather disappointing:it's very academic ,the story is as linear as it can be,the teachers are caricatures,and the mother Claire Maurier delivers such memorable lines as (you've got to be a French circa 1960 to understand how ridiculous it is): Well ,your father 's got only his brevet (junior school diploma)and,as for me ,I've got only my high school diploma!You've got to know,that circa 1960,hardly 10%of the pupils had the HSD in France! Antoine Doinel should have been proud of his mother after all!She wants him to have diplomas,who can blame her? 4.Compared to the innovations of ""Hiroshima mon amour"",which features a brand new form,and a new ""fragmented "" content,""les 400 coups "" pales into significance.Truffaut will master a new form only with the highly superior ""Jules and Jim"", helped by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau. 5.The interpretation is rather stiff;Jean-Pierre Léaud ,arguably listenable when dubbed in English ,is still decent,but he will soon degenerate into the most affected of his generation. 6.The topic=stolen childhood had better days,before (Julien Duvivier's ""Poil de carotte"" ,Luis Bunuel's ""los olvidados"") and will have after (Maurice Pialat's ""l'enfance nue"",Kenneth Loach's ""Kes"") I do not want to demean Truffaut,his movie is not bad,but,frankly,French movie buffs,prefer ""Jules and Jim"" ""l'enfant sauvage"" (a film honest ,true and commercially uncompromizing to a fault)""l'argent de poche""(as academic as ""400 coups"" but much more funny)or his nice Hitchcock pastiche ""vivement dimanche"".

",Negative "Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or ""global amnesia"", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book ""Fallen Angel"" (filmed in 1965 as ""Mirage"" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, ""Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!"" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: ""What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!"" This is one frantic ""Jigsaw""! *1/2 from ****",Negative "This movie is just horrible. It's boring, it's low quality, the actors are just the worst actors I have ever seen and the scenario is so bad that it's hilarious.

The ""main"" actor is supposed to be the hot guy who gets all the girls, but he's ugly, overweight and looks like he's from the early 90's.

All the characters are away for the week-end for a get together amongst friends, but nobody are actually friends! The married couple hasn't seen the ""main"" guy in over 5 years and even back then they weren't really friends. The ""date"" of the main guy only knows him from work and than there's a girl they pick-up at a bar. Now tell me that you would risk losing your job to spend a week-end at your cabin with people that aren't even your real friends. Because that's what he does at the beginning of the movie!

Do not waste even one minute of your time on this lemon. I've made home movies scarier than this!

",Negative "This movie was messed up. A sequel to ""John Carpenter's Vampires"", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first ""Vampires"", it's a good movie. ""Vampires: Los Muetos"" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.

4/10",Negative "The version I saw of this film was the Blockbuster rental with a similar title, but a swear word in it.

This film was funny as hell. It was also true to the bone. If you have ever spent time in Hollywood or the area around it, you will understand the humor. If not, you may not 'get it' at all.

The story of two people in the business struggling to make it until they finally reach a breaking point, it is a rare gem. It states it is a drama, but it is a drama as much as Deer Hunter is a comedy.

Loren Dean is wonderful, as always, as a supporting actor. Jamie Kennedy was able to hold his own well. His performance is especically impressive during the poodle scene. The only downside was Carmen Electra but we can't have everything.",Positive "I have seen this wonderful production, and I wonder if anyone can tell me anything about the actress who played the blacksmith's wife-I am not sure of her character's name. I went to BYU with her and lost touch with her-her maiden name was Kim Luke-and I wonder if anyone has any info on her. She is not listed in the credits. This production was outstanding, a tear-jerker on all accounts, superb acting by all. I guess I don't even want to put it in the general category of 'acting', more like 'portraying with feeling the amazing events that led to the opening of the Heavens for this the final dispensation'.....something like that. If anyone worked with Kim or has a website or something please let me know!!! She was fantastic in her role, by the way....Thanks, Melissa Thorne",Positive "What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.

This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.

Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.

The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...",Negative "Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world – living all life – curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene – and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour – that's the key to life. And looking through the camera – focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life.",Positive "I try to watch it everyday most of the time, and even though I have watched it for the past 4 years, I have not seen every episode.

The Show is about Danny Tanner who is guy who does news for sports. His wife is killed by a car accident from a drunk driver and he asks Jesse, an Elvis maniac with a motorcycle and has an obsession of his hair. Joey, an adult kid who does comedy and does voices of cartoons all the time to take care of his three girls, Donna Joe, they call her D.J., Stephinie who is the second oldest and Michelle, the youngest.

They all live under one roof with no one to help them out.

Later in the show, Jesse gets a girl friend and later is married to her and have twins, Nicki and Alex. (this starts to happen in the new seasons) This show is awesome, if you like The Suite life of Zack and Cody, That's so Raven, Boy Meets world, and Designing Woman, you will love this. (It starts to get better in the ending seasons) Watch it, you will love it!",Positive "This Batman movie isn't quite as good as Batman mask of The Phantasm and Batman and Mr. Freeze subzero But it is still a good installment to the Batman cartoons I say it is equally good as Batman Beyond The Movie. This movie is good for all the same reasons The storyline is good not quite as good as the other one's but still pretty good it has lots of action in it The Cartoon effects are good The voice of actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as Batman/ Bruce Wayne, Tara Strong as Barbra Gordon, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Eli Marienthal as Robin. The villains are good such as Kyra Sedgwick as Batwoman, David Ogden Stiers as The Pequin, Hector Elizondo as Bane. So I am sure you will not be disappointed with batman Mystery of The Batwomen. So make sure that you rent or buy batman Mystery of The Batwoman the movie because it is really good.

Overall score: ******* out of **********

*** out of *****",Positive "For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.

On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.

True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.

And what kind of a name is Mungo?!",Negative "basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in ""Basic Instinct"".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.

well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit ""Basic Instinct"" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.

this movie ""The Fourth Man"" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named ""Reve""(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named ""Christine"", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.

that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!

especially, i like the character ""Reve"" which is brilliantly played by ""Krabbe"".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.

i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.

i rate this movie: 10 out of 10.",Positive "LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: ""Take a tranquilizer and go to bed."" ""Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power."" I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.",Negative "First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.",Negative "It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men.",Negative "The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).

I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.

This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.

The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.

I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.

I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.

I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.

On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.

Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.

Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences.",Positive "Michelle Rodriguez is a well-built high-school senior who discovers that she has a powerful punch and begins amateur training at a Brooklyn gym. Santiago Douglas is a a handsome young man, barely older than she, who also trains there. They meet after class, so to speak, and feel attracted to each other. No sex. Santiago has been instructed to save it for his next bout.

Both are participants in a ""gender-blind"" athletic program that makes no distinctions between males and females, a misguided attempt to level the athletic playing field.

A conservative radio commentator recently announced -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- ""Let's face it; the president is black."" I'm here to make an equally perspicacious observation -- ""Men and women are different."" Now, in 99 cases out of 100, this needn't make any difference in physical performance. But in the top one percent -- trained athletes whose skills have been honed to a fine edge -- men generally have the advantage. With their narrow hips they can run faster. And they have greater muscle mass and upper torso strength. These differences in body build make it possible for women to give birth and raise children and for men to catch and kill food for them. This sexual bifurcation is the result of the perfectly normal process of natural selection. Without it, there might not be any humans at all. And that, boys and girls, is why they have men's events and women's events at the Olympics. I speak to you as your anthropologist. That will be ten cents, PayPal preferred.

That's why I called this gender-blind program misguided. As talented a boxer as Rodrigues is, as she approaches the zenith of the game, she will eventually lose to a male.

That's where the complication arises in this movie. Rodrigues is finally matched against her boy friend, Douglas. Neither wants to loose any anger on the other, not to mention roundhouse rights, but the pride of both is at stake, and the pride is both personal and gender related. Douglas refuses to fight a woman in the ring. And Rodriguez is offended by what she sees as his patronizing attitude. It ends happily.

I wasn't really expecting much from the film. I thought it would be a rip off of Clint Eastwood's ""Million Dollar Baby"" until I discovered that this was released years earlier. And I'd never heard of the director or of any of the performers. That sort of obscurity generally augers ill -- made-for-television weepers and so forth.

But I was surprised at how neatly this is put together. The total absence of bathos left me open mouthed. So did the minimal use of boxing clichés -- the frayed ropes, the blood, the cutting of the swollen eye, the battered post-bout faces, the fat and sweaty onlooker shouting ""Kill him!"", the slow motion landing of glove on nose, the spray of sweat from the mauled head, the heroic music signaling the long-awaited apotheosis of the victor. None of that here -- well, almost none. The whole plot could be considered formulaic. Tough kid finds outlet in the ring, etc.

The feeling you're left with is that this is probably pretty much what these amateur contests are like. Different from those we see on TV and in ordinary movies. No bells ring, for instance, Instead a dancing and observant referee yells ""Stop!"" And ""Box!"" The contestants wear head gear. The gym is populated not by a crowd of cheering spectators, but only by a handful of people who have some particular interest in the goings on. It's a clean movie, despite the rather grim setting and the unhappy family dynamics.

Michelle Rodriguez can look pretty mean, what with her muscular bulk and her eyes glowing under her lowered brow, but once you get used to the idea that this is a girl who can beat you to a pulp anytime she wants, and once you hear the feminine contours of her supersegmentals, she ain't bad. (A scene in which she battles her father to the floor is overdoing it.) It was a little hard to understand Douglas's restraint when Rodriguez crawls all over him in bed. The director, Karyn Kusama, has chosen her talent carefully.

Shows what you can do with some talent, imagination, and a modicum of money. There ought to be more films like it. Take one of those multi-billion dollar blockbusters full of dinosaurs or space ships and spread the generosity around a little.",Positive "We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.

So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.

This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.",Negative "It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.",Negative "One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's ""Hall of Fame"". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !",Positive "A guy desperate for action attempts to hit on a gorgeous girl in a bus. She refuses him, but when he runs after someone who tries to steal her purse they get together anyway. And there it starts - a relation that is slightly tainted by the fact that she is a jealous and neurotic superhero. It can't be a secret that things between them are going to be problematic.

In short, a story that could promise to grow out into a cool film. And IMO, it succeeds at being a nice film. It's no masterpiece, but it had me in tears from laughing on more than one occasion - the two lead characters twirl around each other in a crazy love fest that is, even with the superhero thing going, believable.

So. Thin story, but worked out really funny and thus worthy of cinema time.

7 out of 10 broken hearts",Positive "If you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.

I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.",Negative "In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film.",Positive "This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below ""Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post.",Negative "breathtaking, this is without doubt the best anime cartoon ever made. i first saw castle in the sky in the late 80s as a child and it left a lasting impression. years went by and i forgot the title of the film, and only by chance browsing on the internet i found this masterpiece again. after reading other peoples reviews and analysis I'm not surprised it has such acclaim and touched so many because it does leave an impression. a true fantasy adventure, a must see for all children and adults. its best not giving the story away so i would say watch this movie will a clear and open mind. if you have kids treat them to this i promise you they will love it. there's not much to say about this piece of art but if you've not seen it watch it and enjoy.",Positive "There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as ""pretty awful"" or ""not much good"", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't ""good"" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.",Negative These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.

I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.

This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.

The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.,Negative "I confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.",Negative "...which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Overall, ""DinoCroc"" was a much better movie. Sure, in that movie Matt Borlenghi played a complete wuss-bag who spent the entire movie crying about his little brother getting eaten by the DinoCroc. But the special effects in ""DinoCroc"" were better, the plot lines were better, and the acting was better. Here are the problems with ""Blood Surf"" -- 1) the killer crocodile looks like a kid's model with a retractable jaw. 2) the plot is ridiculous. Matt Borlenghi & Co. get shipwrecked on a deserted island, in which they encounter a rabid group of ugly Filipino natives who try to force themselves upon the women in the group. Which was a complete waste of 15 minutes of film. And 3) there's not enough croc time. There are a couple of redeeming qualities of ""Blood Surf"" -- the actresses are pretty attractive and Matt Borlenghi gets eaten by the croc towards the end of the movie. But if you're on your deathbed and only have enough time to watch one Matt Borlenghi/killer crocodile movie, skip this one and fire up ""DinoCroc"" instead.",Negative "Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.

A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' ""un maximum d'""). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson.",Positive "This movie is very great! The acting is fine, with excellent casting of Corbin Bernsen as the perfectionistic dentist who freaks out and tortures his patients. In the beginning he sees his wife with the poolman, and then he goes crazy. He also takes revenge on his wife and the poolman, beside the patients he tortures. The most special effects are also beautiful, although some are really fake (like a drilled-out tongue, that has laid for 1 night outside, and is still red in the morning). But the torture scenes are absolutely well-done. Though this movie has the weak point that it is very slow; between the heavy parts are sometimes just extremiously boring parts. But for the real horror/thriller-fan this is a must-watch!",Positive "Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.

The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.

I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and...",Positive "For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.

Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.

I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode – with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue – and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him ""clicking"" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.

Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes – those not written by McGovern – mistreated the character.

So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show – making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding – you'll feel that ""click"" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.

The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes – the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma – rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.

It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives – one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.

But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going – reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we – as an audience – don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.

I can't say that this ruined the show for me – it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like ""To Be A Somebody"" – an episode that was just as ""issuey"", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.

Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department – which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).

Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) – he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.

So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.",Negative "Previously, I wrote that I loved ""Titanic"", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.

Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0.

In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in ""Titanic"". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for ""Titanic"", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)

Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of ""Titanic"" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical ""bombs"" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). ""Heaven's Gate"" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). ""Big Top Pee-wee"" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). ""Cat People"" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). ""Blind Date"" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). ""Jumpin' Jack Flash"" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH ""TITANIC""? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN ""TITANIC"", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, ""Titanic"" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.

Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?

",Positive "All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit.",Negative "Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes!",Positive "I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.

Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.

Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.",Negative "When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this ""forensic fairy tale"", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.

For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.

Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled ""The Pie Hole."" A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.

One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte ""Chuck"" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.

This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes.",Positive "This tale set in Wellington, New Zealand suburbia (Tawa -home of the renowned Tawa College) is McCarten's first feature.

With a contemporary New Zealand flavour Via Satellite abounds with absolutely hilarious situations which develop in the (adult) family context. At the same time it manages to invoke intense emotions of sadness and despair.

One of the most moving and humourous movies of the year - not to be missed!",Positive "Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.

You'd think that after such dismal flicks ""Superstar"", ""Night at the Roxbury"", and ""Coneheads"", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.

I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.

Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen.",Negative "I'm sorry to all the fans, but this is a useless movie. The acting is bad, even wooden, it over-hypes the fright-factor early on, and doesn't exactly work. I think there was supposed to be a twist at the end, but it just ended up being maddeningly confusing. What the hell? The dude who was killing everyone was one of the hunted? Try again.

Its hardly original, and it isn't even particularly good as a straight slasher. And that's saying something.

I think whoever did the castings, whoever wrote the script, and whoever thought of the concept should be mercilessly fired and deported.

Don't watch this movie. If someone puts this on at a party, throw the disc out the window and put on a good horror movie, like Silence of the Lambs or The Shining.",Negative "I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted ""proof"" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA ""deserved"" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:

""In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.""

WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean ""we"", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.

But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we ""deserved"" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out ""fact"" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's ""Facts"" added up to guacamole.

But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver ""Captain Conspiracy"" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to ""Release the Hounds."" Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.

Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.",Negative "I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen ""Homicidal"" and ""The Tingler"" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and ""The House On Haunted Hill"" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of ""Homicidal"" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of ""The Tingler"" while silly, was highly original.

But ""The House On Haunted Hill"" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my ""spoiler"" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but ""House"" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.",Positive "This is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.

Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?

The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.

Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: ""The world is a totally evil place,"" this movie tells you, "" and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead.""

And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.",Negative "I'm allowed to write 1000 words about this film, but one word could suffice: bizarre. Hubby and I didn't laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. We kept looking at each other with our best ""What the...?"" expressions. There is no way to adequately describe this movie. Killer tomatoes were funny, but this is just sick. What kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see? What kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird, weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children? Parents, whatever you do, if your child still believes in Santa, don't let him/her see this movie. Preteens can watch it -- probably with ""What the...?"" expressions on their faces. If you decide to inflict this movie on others, you might want to spike their eggnog.

Quite possibly the worst film ever made.",Negative "If you would like to see a film of different kind, if you feel the Love in your heart, even if you miss the Lord, this film makes you think. Although Georges is mentally handicapped, you can see the ultimate intelligence at the end, when love gives you directions not the brain. I am not emotional, but this film makes you feel the human being. The film is as good as Forrest Gump in my belief. The foreign movies are sometimes more interesting, yet there is not enough advertisement to make them popular. ""Rang-e khoda"" (The Color of The God) by Majid Majidi is another example of such foreign movies, almost with similar taste.",Positive "This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.

The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. ""The First Casualty of War is Innocence.""",Positive "Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing.",Positive "This review owes its existence entirely to a review. We take a weekly TV magazine to see what is coming up, and duly decide what we will watch. Obligingly, there are brief reviews of most of the films scheduled to be shown on the five major terrestrial channels. In addition to the prose, each film is allocated a 1-5 star rating. 5 means Don't Miss (superior to 4 for Excellent!), down to 1 standing for Poor. We have learned from vast experience that, with few exceptions, stars are awarded for gross taste, foul language, offensive content, promiscuity, horror, blood & guts, and especially killing off the hero/heroine just when everyone was about to live happily ever after. (If that isn't done, the movie is denigrated as being 'predictable' - the worst insult imaginable!)

Brave New Girl was given only 1 star, thereby suggesting it was a candidate worthy of our time and attention. This was confirmed by the reviewer's description of the movie as being a ""truly awful tale"", and, ""Stupid, just stupid"". We watched it, and my wife and I were glad we did so. The TV magazine reviewer further stated that the movie was ""not a reworking of War and Peace"", with which we have to agree. Reading through the IMDb reviews for this title a day or two later, the urge to pick up my pen (so to speak) to add my halfpennyworth (pronounced harf'pen'uth (emphasis on the first syllable) for the uninitiated) became overwhelming.

Why did we take to this movie? Well, it's just a matter of taste. We like attractive characters, believable relationships between them, interesting situations, courtesy and respect, good triumphing over evil, and so on. We liked the integrity and personalities of Holly (Lindsey Haun), her Mum (Virginia Madsen), Ditz (Barbara Mamabolo), Grant (Nick Roth), Zoe (Joanne Boland) and the two male professors involved in the story. So what if the storyline includes a 'wicked witch of the west' in the form of Angela (Barbara Mamabolo), provided that she plays the part with some conviction. We appreciated the friendship depicted between the two room-mates, with one having a financially challenged upbringing by a loving single Mum, and the other having every material advantage but receiving little parental time and affection. Is it any wonder that Ditz felt the way she did about Holly's Mum? Is it surprising that Grant should take an immediate interest in Holly, considering the manner of their initial meeting, Holly's dazzling smiles and her lively self-possession? I think these issues and the events are believable enough, but it is necessary to pretend that the scholarship and other circumstances are realistic in order for the tale to have a setting.

My wife and I are greatly blessed by not having any significant musical education. This enables us to enjoy the sounds produced by instruments and voices without having our critical faculties intruding unduly on our listening, and thus spoiling the experience. We enjoyed both the classical pieces and the pop, which came over well on the TV, and we weren't struck by any lack of talent. Also, it mattered not that Holly's classical vocals were dubbed by someone else.

We enjoyed the movie enough to look for a DVD. The average delivered price we have paid per disk for the movies in our collection currently stands at £4.9484 (rounded to four decimal places). Brave New Girl was available from a trusted supplier on the Amazon Marketplace for £1.3516 (rounded to four decimal places) above this figure. Such a purchase would increase the average. Why I should resent this is a mystery to me, but it is a testimony to our enjoyment of this film that we placed an order anyway. I have awarded this film 7 IMDb stars out of ten, having docked one for overenthusiastic reception of the performances by the audiences, one for Britney advertising and one for something else I can't remember right now. (In case it hasn't tumbled, this review is an anthem in celebration of the use of brackets!)",Positive "What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.

The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.

The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.

EXCELLENT 10/10",Positive "The Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.

There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the ""When you're as criminal as I"" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came from.",Negative "Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.

Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).

To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).

Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.

-Matthew McGuire",Negative "I really dislike both Shrek films. (Since their both ""PG"" and have words in them I would never say myself, so I disliked them.)

But when it comes to ""Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron,"" which I just barely watched for the first time last month, I became a fan of animated films, other than Pixar. ***Spoilers ahead*** In ""Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron,"" a horse foal is born and eventually becomes the leader of his heard. One night, he sees a strange light in the distance, and he sets off toward it. This action eventually leads to his capture, and several more things. Throughout the movie, we hear a narration. It's through the thoughts of Spirit, though the horses never talk. This is what makes the movie so goo. They (the movie makers) recored real horses to do the sounds the horses made; none of those sounds were made by humans.

Spirit meets Rain, a beautiful mare, and Little Creek, a native-American, who owns Rain. Little Creek later frees Spirit and Rain, they go running home.

I have never been a big fan of Brian Adams, but I intend to buy the soundtrack to this film in the near future.

Watch this film, and you won't regret it. My Score: 10/10",Positive "This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad ""bunny"" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get ""laid."" Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar ""2"" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.",Negative "Have you ever sat watching a movie when 20 or 30 minutes have gone by and suddenly you realize that you have actually seen the movie before? That happened to me with ""The Young Graduates"". The cover of the video box, if you can find the video, is extremely deceiving. I'd swear that the two women on the cover aren't even in the film.

Anyway, I was either born a decade too late to appreciate the finer points of this film or...it is simply pointless junk. I'm heavily leaning toward the latter but I guess some out there have developed a connection to this movie.

Hmm...plot. A plot. Let's see...there must be a plot around here somewhere. Nope, I can't find it. It's pretty much about some high school seniors acting dopey and doing drugs and speaking in a language that became outdated decades ago. One of the female students has a crush on her teacher. The teacher has a frigid wife (whom he indeed refers to as an iceberg) so he is receptive to the girl's advances.

There's a lot of driving around and inane dialogue and plenty of spastic dancing. Our cat, BooBoo, was transfixed by the dancing high school kids. She watched with amazing intensity as the dancers gyrated and shook out on the dance floor. It's nice to see that at least one species has found something interesting in this relic. 1/10",Negative "Someone actually gave this movie 2 stars. There's a very high chance they need immediate professional help as anyone who doesn't spend 30 seconds to see if you can award no stars is quite literally scary.

This film is ... well ... I guess it's pretty much some kind of attempt at a horrible porn / snuff movie with no porn or no real horrible bits (apart from the acting, plot, story, sets, dialogue and sound). I wrongly assumed it was about zombies.

Watching it is actually quite scary in fairness; you're terrified someone will come over and you'll never be able to describe what it is and they'll go away thinking you're a freak that watches home-made amateur torture videos or something along those lines.

I'm so taken aback I'm writing this review on my mobile so I don't forget to attempt to bring the rating down further than the current 1.6 to save others from the same horrible fate that I just suffered.

I worst film I've ever seen and I can say (with hand on heart) it will never, never be topped.",Negative "I really wanted to love this show. I truly, honestly did.

For the first time, gay viewers get their own version of the ""The Bachelor"". With the help of his obligatory ""hag"" Andra, James, a good looking, well-to-do thirty-something has the chance of love with 15 suitors (or ""mates"" as they are referred to in the show). The only problem is half of them are straight and James doesn't know this. If James picks a gay one, they get a trip to New Zealand, and If he picks a straight one, straight guy gets $25,000. How can this not be fun?! Take my hand, lets stroll:

The most glaring problem with this show is the bachelor himself. James is your typical young and successful gay guy with a nice smile and body, the one you'd probably give two glances towards at your local bar before grazing for greener pastures. Why they chose to cast James as the leading man is beyond me. God knows there's so many other hotter and vivacious homosexual men out there dying to be on TV.

Aside from his rather average physical appearance, James is about as interesting and exciting as a piece of chalk. Even as such, he has this arrogant, smugly condescending aura about him. However, if James were standing up against a blank, white wall he'd meld right into in it. I honestly can't recall a single interesting or noteworthy thing James said during the course of the show. He is THAT boring and forgettable. In fact, one of the mates flat out advised him he wasn't feeling a connection. I thought that was the best part of the show. Also, James speaks with an excruciatingly annoying lilt. Sound feminine or sound masculine, but don't ****ing segue tones in the middle of sentences...so painful to sit through. I hated him so much all throughout the show I kept thinking, ""Please choose a straight guy and humiliate yourself and your unfortunate looking hag""

Then we have the suitors. A remarkably bland bunch of men who don't seem to care either way what is happening. Equally vapid, they seem to be indistinguishable from one guy to the next except, ""Hey that guy has blond highlights or oh that one has curly hair"" Again, astoundingly inept casting decisions seem to be the aim of this show. While it may be hackneyed to type cast roles, it would've been a lot more entertaining to watch than these amorphous drones. However, in all their banality they still manage to upstage James (which isn't all that hard to do anyway), slightly that is. You know you have a problem when some of the suitors are actually hotter and more interesting than the leading man. And the fact that the suitors seem to have more fun around EACH OTHER than with the leading man? Very sad.

Also, I just thought that Id point something mentioned on the message boards which I felt was actually true: the straight men are all hotter than the gay guys.

Don't get me wrong, Im not saying all the gay guys were ugly and boring, as a matter of fact I found some of them very cute. It's just that overall they were just BLAH compared to the men you'd see on shows like A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila or The Bachelorette.

I don't know how many times I hit fast forward during this show. I can accept a lead character as interesting as a cardboard box, I can accept the mundane, apathetic suitors but PLEASE for the love of God entertain me just a little. No such luck.

If you're expecting drama, intrigue, sexiness, or excitement you will be SEVERELY disappointed. The biggest ""drama"" comes from the fact that one of the suitors still may have a boyfriend in New York (How scandalous!). As titillating as that may be I guarantee you, that is the ONLY thing that remotely resembles any conflict on this show.

Sure there is the twist, but if you have any semblance of Gaydar in you, you'll easily discern who's who (it wasn't hard at all, I was only wrong once.) This show is stacking so much of its chips on the twist that it fails to deliver anywhere else.

We get to watch as James & Co plod along such exciting activities such as learning how to Western step dance, shopping for gifts, visiting a petting zoo, and gay karaoke. YAWN. Sure you have the occasional topless dancing but who cares when everyone is boring anyway. That's one of main problems with the show: NO ONE seems to be enjoying themselves--they are there just going through the motion trying mightily hard to appear to have a good time. And you really cant blame them since the events are all wildly unimaginative and lame.

Finally, the physical aspect is not there. There's no cuddling, no caressing, no kissing (!), no endearment of any sort. It's just ""Ok that was a boring date, Im gonna go back to my ugly, tacky wanna-be Sydney Operahouse dwelling (quick peck on the lips) CYA."" This show is so ****ing prudish it's ridiculous. I can understand them not wanting to play up the perceived indiscretionary nature of homosexual men, but come the **** on. People who watch reality TV shows are gonna want more than standoffish hugs and curt kisses. This show refuses to compromise.

Sorry if this was long winded but I felt these were issues that needed to be addressed. I do commend Bravo for first putting up a show of this nature, but the staggeringly incompetent manner in which this show was handled is mind boggling. To summarize my three points: Boring + Boring + Boring = go do something else. You'll have more fun waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, at least they have interesting magazines there.",Negative "Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.",Positive "This film makes a strong comment about the Italian people of the time. The use of the mirrors to enhance the revelations of the characters is lovely and I can't not mention the beauty and magnificence of Sophia Loren and Mastroianni. I love them both. Their way of interacting is so beautiful and natural that you may question whether or not the camera is actually there. The husband, in his brief role, is also excellently portrayed as the fascist Italian who commands his wife and children but, in his own way, a loving father. The beginning scenes with Hitler at Piazza Venezia with all the Italians is incredible and really places the film historically. I loved the film and I also agree that it is funny it isn't more renowned.",Positive "Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply ""Black Noon"" and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.

I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.

If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.

If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film!",Positive "A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.

The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The ""What the hell am I doing here with this idiot"" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.

It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears.",Positive "This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.

The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining

The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)

If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning",Negative "Indian Summer is a warm, multi-character film, that would make a fine afternoon film (with a bit of editing).

The film begins in the past with a group of children being shown a moose, which sets the tone perfectly before cutting into the present, when a group of adults from the ""golden age"" of the camp are invited back again to spend a few weeks holiday by the head of the camp, Uncle Lou. The film then allows the viewer to spend time with these characters as they remember their times at the camp, and form new memories in their latest stay.

The film succeeds in the great way it brings across its characters in this gorgeous setting, and allows them room to develop without having to worry about plot developments. Watching these people reminisce, and their relationships with each other is what the film is all about and why it works so well. It never goes to over the top and melodramatic, always keeping its warmth, charm and realism. I've never seen a film where nostalgia is captured so well, and found myself getting drawn in despite never having been to one of these camps as a child myself.

For a warm, nostalgic character movie, I sincerely recommend.",Positive "Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.

**/5",Negative "This was basically an attempt to do the same thing with ""Batman"" that was done with ""Gilligan's Island"" in ""Surviving Gilligan's Island."" For those of you who missed it (and shame!) ""Surviving Gilligan's Island"" (full title: ""Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History"") was a special from a few years back, where Bob Denver (""Gilligan""), Dawn Wells (""Mary Ann"") and Russell Johnson (""The Professor"") related the story of the show's creation, cancellation, rediscovery & rebirth. Along the way, stories were dramatized with actors portraying the original cast and crew. It was very well done. It was funny, well cast and came across as a genuine document of the show.

""Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt"" is in a similar style. The re-telling of the history of the show, the re-enactments, the general feel are all the same. What's missing is the straightforward approach that ""Surviving"" took.

In ""Return"", Adam West and Burt Ward both receive invitations to a car show to which they were not meant to be invited. After being allowed to stay, Adam and Burt witness the theft of the centerpiece of the show: the legendary Batmobile! Adam and Burt decide to chase after it themselves, leading them through clues that cause them to think about the history of the show. This eventually leads to the revelation of who stole the Batmobile and why.

Choosing to use this conceit (actually having a plot) is the biggest letdown of this show. Unlike ""Surviving"", ""Return"" forces the viewer to follow a less interesting storyline (the theft of the Batmobile) instead of focusing all its attention on what the audience would most be interested in (the history of the show.) It is the historical sections that work the best. The casting (as in ""Surviving"") is excellent. Jack Brewer (""Adam West"") and Jason Marsden (""Burt Ward"") capture the feel of the actors without looking *too* much like them. Brett Rickaby (""Frank Gorshin"") bears a stronger resemblance to his subject, but captures none of the late Gorshin's charm, only his characterizations. Other actors' portrayals are short and functional, with none standing out as especially good or bad. Many of the stories have been told before, but they mostly play out amusingly, with only the occasional clunky presentation. Another wonderful bit from the historical sections was the use of audition footage of Lyle Waggoner's tryout for the part of Batman. The only place where the flashbacks fail is when they insert obviously made up plot points to advance the main story. This downgrades the accuracy of the flashbacks needlessly.

The ""main plot"" (if that is what we must call it) is, of course, ludicrous. This is not really a fault in and of itself, but it's just not carried off well enough to cover up the shortfall. Strong performances and good writing can make up for a silly plot (especially in these kinds of things) but we really get neither, here. The performances by West and Ward seem somewhat flat (even for them); the dialog too carefully written for it to feel natural. Again, I think the comparison to ""Surviving Gilligan's Island"" can be seen in that the dialog is mostly just there to set up a flashback. In ""Surviving"", that's all it intends to be. In ""Return"" it tries to do double duty and, unfortunately, often fails. Gorshin and Newmar do well (although I agree with others that Gorshin had not aged well and that Newmar had - and what's Waggoner taking to look that good?) but aren't given enough to do. Again, I think they all would have been better served by a more straightforward presentation than the one chosen here.

Another odd point about ""Return"". This special is about the ""Batman"" TV series and its history, yet all the clips shown are from the theatrical movie. Even the Waggoner footage is technically movie footage. If you know you're ""Bat-history"", then you know that the movie was originally planned to be made first, only to be delayed in favor of the TV show when CBS needed to fill time fast. So when Waggoner and West were testing for the role, it was for the movie, not the TV show. Why ""Return"" only uses movie footage is unclear. It most probably has to do with rights issues, but it is a distinct distraction to those in the know: seeing Julie Newmar in the present, but only footage of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman in the past.

Overall, I liked the show, mainly for the flashbacks. I would have preferred the style used in ""Surviving Gilligan's Island"", but I can understand why they'd want a more story-oriented piece given the subject matter. Besides, I like these people. It's nice to see them out and about, still having fun with one of the great pieces of entertainment history. I just wish they had done it a little better and when more of the original cast was still alive to be there.",Positive "I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. ""Cute"" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being.",Positive "To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.

""When Directors Go Awry"" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.

How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a ""style""? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the ""editing by random numbers"" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.

I guess it's too much work to do good editing.

Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.",Negative "I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.",Negative "I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.

",Negative "Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!",Negative "Tony Scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in Richard Kelly's clichéd, patchy, overwrought screenplay. Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. This is her story... ""sort of"".

The problem with this rubbish is that there isn't much of a story at all and Scott's extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in Harvey's chaotic life.

You just don't care about Harvey. Knightley plays her as an obnoxious, cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. She punches people she doesn't like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it, but she isn't the least bit real and Knightly isn't the least bit convincing, either.

The film is boring. It's loud, too, and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores I've heard in a long time. The final twenty minutes are a poor re-run of Scott's ""True Romance"" climax with Domino's gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are -- surprise! surprise! -- destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a Las Vegas casino.

Unfortunately, this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by Scott and becomes a confusing, pretentious, pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. This is not an artistically brave or experimental piece; it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters.

Mickey Roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter, but he disappears into the background as the ""narrative"" progresses. Chris Walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and Dabney Coleman, always solid, is underutilized.

Don't be fooled by this film's multi-layered, gimmick-ridden surface. It is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it.",Negative "I saw ""An American in Paris"" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are ""It's Very Clear"" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and ""I Got Rhythm"" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in ""Une Chanson Americaine""). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it !",Positive "I've read many negative reviews of this movie and finally got a chance to see it on DVD. To be honest I really don't know what the problem with it is.

It's a decent murder mystery thriller, shown from various points of view, from an eccentric cast of often drugged out potential killers/suspects, including the late porn king, John Holmes. Please read the plot synopsis for the exact details of the movie's plot - I wish to contribute more to a review than a synopsis.

Many reviewers went so far to give this movie their lowest rating due to violence but I really don't see it. MANY modern movies were worse - Saving Private Ryan was ultimately more violent than this movie, which often relies on implied blood stains than actual brutal slayings (the murders depicted in this film were done with lead pipes, afterall).

I was enthralled with both halves of the movie - the first showing John Holmes as a hopeless cash hungry drug addict, and the second half showing his side as a minor conspirator in a senseless bloodbath. The movie has excellent acting, even though Dylan McDemorant looks more than a bit out of place in his biker-esque personia and goatee'ed bad boy personality.

The soundtrack was also awesome - a fantastic mix of 70's B-side rock and obscure pop, spread out over a couple of hours in all the right places ala Boogie Nights.",Positive "Everything was better in past days. Even children's television. And Fraggle Rock proves my point quite easily. At the time of writing this comment I am fourteen years old but even in my teen years I can't resist the charm of Fraggle Rock. For those of you that have indeed been living under a rock (haha!), Fraggle Rock is about a horde of playful and goofy creatures called Fraggles who live-amazingly-in a rock. But they're not the only creatures. The rock is inhabited with many other species like the hardworking Doozers and countless living plants. Outside the rock on one side live inventor-scientist Doc and his dog Sprocket (who later befriends Gobo Fraggle), on the other side a family of Gorgs-supposed rulers of the Universe. The five main Fraggles Gobo (fearless leader), Mokey (arty and peaceful), Wembley (indecisive and a friend to Gobo), Boober (a pessimistic domestic god) and Red (loves anything to do with sport and general feistyness)get caught up in some strange situations each episode while at the same time sing and dance their cares away.

Fraggle Rock is definitely a family show-the plots may have intricate details that infants may not follow well, but the song-and-dance routines will hold their attention. The characters are strong and likable, their conflicts believable and their adventures thrilling. The Gorgs are frightening, Doc and Sprocket enlightening, Uncle Travelling Matt hilarious (the postcard segments are very 80s!) and the final episode, Change of Address, genuinely touching. Let's go down to Fraggle Rock again!",Positive "Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda ""Nevada""(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.

That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.

If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10",Negative "My name is Domino Harvery. {EDIT *dizzying* CHOP} My--my--my name is Domino Harvey. {CUT, CHOP} My name is Domino Harvey. {EDIT. CUT. Playback}

Never have I seen a director take so much flack for his style before. By now it is evident that most people do not appreciate Tony Scott's choppy, flashy, dizzying editing technique. If I have to choose between loving it and hating it, I'd say I love it. It was borderline distracting at times, but the end result was pretty good and it's nice to see a director with a creative edge to his style and some originality (even if it borrows heavily from MTV videos).

This stylistic edge manifests itself as Keira Knightley plays the role of cocky badass bounty hunter Domino Harvey and even her dialogue seems strangely choppy. Otherwise she plays her poorly because I pretty much hated her character and did not sympathize one bit with her, no matter how much she suffered. We follow Domino through her life as she joins up with fellow bounty hunters Mickey Rourke, Rizwan Abbasi and Edgar Ramirez. The crew become tangled up in the FBI and suddenly has a reality show contract under Christopher Walken's TV production company (what is Christopher Walken doing in every film, by the way?). I guess that is a clever film technique, because now Tony Scott is free to use as much flashy MTV/Reality Show editing footage as he likes. It becomes a pastiche of MTV culture at this point.

It followes then that the story is told at an amazingly rapid-fire pace, with lots of raunchy strong language and gun violence. There are some funny jokes; it's all very modern and surreal at the same time. It's a mess, but it's a rather enjoyable mess. It is ultimately flawed in so many ways (the actors try too hard to make their characters ""cool"", for one) but it works. I give it a weak 7/10 which may seem generous when compared to the general consensus of movie-goers who graded this film — but I feel it had some good ideas and executed them well.

7 out of 10",Positive "Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch",Negative "This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.",Negative "Excellent film dealing with the life of an old man as he looks back over the years. Starting around 1910, he reminisces about his boy and young adulthood; his family, friends, romances, etc. Very nostalgic piece with a bittersweet finale....""all things in life come together as one, and a river runs through it. And that river haunts me."" Worth seeing.",Positive """Angels in the Outfield"" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).

This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!

What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).

""Angels in the Outfield"" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!

10/10",Positive "As I work at a video store, I found it to be my solemn duty to talk about the worst movies I've ever seen, and warn my friends and co-workers of it. Amidst one day of particularly heated debate of what is the worst movie, my friend dared me to watch B.T.K. Killer, even stating that if I could watch the whole movie and still claim my previous choice was the worst movie ever, then he'd watch it. I lost. I believe that even I made better videos than this in high school, and those were hardly great feats of a young genius. This film not only lacked in what seemed to be production value (it looks like it was shot on a bad camcorder, although it is surprisingly clear), but also in acting (wooden, hollow, and pathetic don't scratch the surface), as well as just generally bad movie feeling. I can remember a scene where I heard glass smash, suddenly, I was reminded of some bad high school plays (I know that I reference high school too often here, but this film did seem very juvenile) both in terms of the set, which seemed far too fake, but also as if the people were reading their lines from the script, not entirely sure what was actually going on. My review doesn't do this film justice, because I can't describe how utterly horrid the time I spent watching this was. It's almost ironic that I do a pathetic job describing a pathetic excuse for a movie.",Negative "As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.",Negative "Viggo Mortensen stars as a new inmate of a haunted prison in which the warden (Played well by Lane Smith) has a grisly secret that could be the reason why various prison guards and inmates are being slaughtered by a supernatural presence. Lincoln Kilpatrick is the lifer who knows the secret and is scared for his life. When I think prison movies, I always think action movies starring Stallone or Van Damme or high caliber dramas such as Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile. However I didn't expect a ghost story more along the lines of Exorcist III. Prison however is an atmospheric effort and it certainly remains the best movie of Renny Harlin's career. The movie is creepy and has some good acting from a cast of (at the time) unknowns. Lane Smith comes off the best because his warden isn't the usual cliché of evil personified but rather nervous and twitchy which adds some credibility to a movie that far exceeds expectations.

*** out of 4-(Good)",Positive "Belushi at his most ingratiating and Courtney Cox before Friends has a small role. I often think Belushi is under-used in Hollywood and this film role is one of his best. For those of you who watch his TV show, this is a very different and likable character. The movie itself is not earth shattering, nor is the message new but rather it is sweet and endearing. The supporting cast of familiar faces and unfamiliar names is a perfect balance although Lovitz's whining can get tiresome, and Michael Caine's charming spiritual guide has a slightly sinister if not well-meaning edge. Hamilton, as Belushi's wife is unfortunately two-dimensional and one wonders why he married her. In addition, Renee Russo is wasted and not terribly convincing at the ""prom queen"" who got away. Nevertheless, a nice way to spend two hours.",Positive "This is a Frank Loesser masterpiece of amusing lyrics, competent themes and solid construction by those who adapted Damon Runyon material to the musical's ""book"". What is surprising about the film is how seamlessly the musical numbers flow from the storyline. Abe Burrows did the book with contributions from Loesser; Michael Kidd was the choreographer, and the outstanding art direction was contributed by Joseph Wright. The storyline can be told in two sentences. Nathan Detroit, played by Frank Sinatra, needs cash to finance his permanent floating crap game to amuse Big Julie, a Chicago Mob Boss. He bets odds-player Sky Masterson, well-presented by Marlon Brando, that he cannot get a Salvation Army girl to go to Havana with him; Masterson wins the bet, saves the Mission, falls in love with the girl, gets the gamblers and riffraff at the crap game to attend a service, and tells everybody the lady was impervious to his charms--a complete lie. Of course he ends up with the lady; and Detroit marries hi long-suffering fiancée, Vivian Blaine. Others in the cast include Stubby Kaye, Johnny Silver, Robert Keith, B.S. Pulley as Big Julie the Mobster, Sheldon Leonard, Regis Toomey, Mary Alan Kokanson, Kathryn Givney as the Salvation Army leader, Veda Ann Borg and Jean Simmons as the tepid Salvation Army girl, Sarah Brown. The famous musical numbers in this award-winning Broadway smash include ""Fugue For Tinhorns"", ""Guys and Dolls"", ""Luck Be a Lady"", ""I'll Know"", ""A Person Could Develop a Cold"", and ""The Oldest Established Permnanet Floating Crap Game in New York!"". Joseph L. Mankiewicz of ""Cleopatra"" and ""Letter to Three Wives"" Fame directed the proceedings; and the flow of the work is very interestingly and successfully kept moving. He is equally adept at getting fine dialogue acting and directing such huge numbers as ""Luck Be Lady"", the varied and challenging brawl section, the Havana ""A Woman in Love"" section created for the film that precedes it, the presenting of the title song ""Guys and Dolls"" and ""Pet Me, Poppa"" set in the club where Blaine works. The acting is very uneven. Simmons seems wrong for the part at times, Brando gets by with the singing and is very good much of the time on instinct, charm and underplaying, even in the comedy. scenes. Sinatra tries hard but is wrong for the role for several reasons as Nathan Detroit; Blaine is a bit too-theatrical in selling her numbers, which she of course sings professionally. Leonard, Toomey, Kaye, Keith and Pulley do what is asked and more at all points. The stylized opening and closing are made to work well; all in all, this film is a triumph for Loesser's amiable and subtle lyrics, for director Mankiewicz as ringmaster, and for the genre of musicals itself, so ably justified in this instance. Delightful and very different.",Positive "I just saw a press screening of this film and I was pleasantly surprised. Not often is it that I get to see all of my favorite actors in one film at one time.

I really enjoyed the pick pocket scene and it was good to see Rachael Bilson and Hayden back together. I think their chemistry on camera is a direct result of their time together off camera. My favorite scene was by far (surprisingly so) Bret Ratner's piece... Without giving too much away, I'll just say that there is a surprise that leaves you hanging...

The old couple were really good together and you actually got the impression that they had spent a lifetime together.

Both the Chris Cooper and the Ethan Hawke segments packed a punch with surprises that seem realistic and similar to experiences that I've had in the big apple. Over all the film is a great place to take a date... especially if you're already fond of the city itself.

I can't wait for the next in the Cities of Love.",Positive "What do you call a horror story without horror and story?

This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember ""Cube""? Even that film knew more about itself.)

I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.

You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.

I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.",Negative "Jean-Marc Barr (Being Light, The big blue, Dogville) has directed and interpreted this strange movie which is the second installment of some kind of trilogy. I might be wrong but I don't think this movie's part of the Dogma '95 manifesto, though it really looks like it. I'm not really sure of what I think about this film. All actors are good. They deliver pretty good performances, especially Rosanna Arquette and Jean-Marc Barr. The story is somehow interesting. But I don't know, there's something about the movie that I don't like. The sex scenes are way too long. It goes from an interesting work of art to an erotic piece of crap I don't know exactly where it stands. Sure it's not a bad movie, but I won't suggest people to see it neither I'll tell them not to watch. Just do as you want. If you feel curious and you're open-minded, give it a try, you might like it.",Negative "To me there is something so appealing and nostalgic about low-budget sci-fi. As a kid in the 50s thats all there was. In 1957 I saw ""The First Man Into Space"" in a movie theater with my Dad. It had Marshall Thompson starring and some other poor slob who got the title role. It is also about a space mission gone bad where the astronaut turns into a grizzly killer. Scared the Good & Plenty right out of me. The memory of those heebie-jeebies still lives within me. The Incredible Melting Man is almost a re-make only in full glorious color...that is wherever the scenes were well-lit. Just gotta love it for what it is......a little over an hour of darkly lit scenes, disgusting noises, and that eerie music. Bravo !",Positive "Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other ""science fiction"" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.",Negative "I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful.",Negative "Let me start by saying at the young age of 34 I was suddenly widowed. I was devastated as he was NOT sick--- he died unexpectedly basically of a coronary--- his carotids blew out-- he died behind our house. There was a lot of speculation from police, cause he fell on something and it bashed his head in. I was a suspect for murder until the autopsy came back.

My children were as traumatized as I was, so in love with a good father figure as he. I had three small children, no education, no financial support. I took it very, very hard.

Within two years my in-laws attacked me verbally, physically, emotionally and spiritually demanding I grieve not in front of the children, and put on masks and showed people what they wanted to see, not show them my pain during holidays... Nobody stood up for me and my choice to sit out one holiday, except of course, the grief therapist I was seeing that had advised me to follow my heart and soul. My in-laws didn't get it! It changed FOREVER my relationship with them, and I have never been back for a holiday. This is only one example of how my grief was disrespected! My own (new) husband has seen me fall apart talking about the trauma when I shared from my soul. I collapse, can not breathe, hyperventilate, and generally am defunct for a few days if I even try to convey the hidden pain.

Now about this movie...

Today, my soul was stirred, my heart broken. My fears and pain re-surfaced from the real demons this movie presents; how one grieves compared to how others expect us too and the demons within. Adam Sandler portrayed perfectly the horrendous agony you face, overcome and most of all, work through on your own time! This movie dredged up all the pain that I have tried over the years to deal with. You see, when something harms your soul so profoundly, so deep that utterances are all that come from your mouth in moments of thinking, you can not deal with it without wishing you were dead and walking through life, in a dead state.

The bible has a scripture, Romans 8:26 that I have clung to, that when my mouth and soul know not what to pray for, that God's Holy Spirit carries that agony to the feet of God-- I need not speak. Sandler portrayed that to perfection!

There is a scene where he has been hauled into a court hearing, for mental health commitment purposes, and he goes back in to face his in-laws--- (familiar to me)--- and he tells them the stunning truths that he has been possessed by, per Se, that he can't get over. It's a profoundly strong, and mighty performance. I started bawling and had a hard time after wards getting up to walk out from the theater feeling my legs too weak to do so. My son was with me and saw it first hand, my precise motions while trying to hold it all together; a lesson for him, my youngest who barely remembers his daddy. It's been 13 years for me but this movie brought me back to the moment of losing my in-laws forever when they demanded a mask on my emotions and my surrendering to their desires, instead of respect to my own.

I write this, so that if you are a griever, you are prepared for this movie, but recommend it highly in the 1000 star performance Sandler gave.

If you are not yet a griever, please take a lesson from his movie and just listen and accept people's choices in their grief, letting them find peace in their own time! Sometimes, the soul can not utter the words to convey our pain.

Go see this movie with tissues and not without preparing to take it in... to your soul!",Positive "This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between ""Kung-Fu"" and ""H R Pufnstuff"" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, ""cliffhanger scenes"", and not too much romance or other ""icky"" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.)

I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.

Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.

Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! ""Dialogue"" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that ""dialog"" is the proper spelling. While ""dialog"" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form.",Negative "Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?",Negative "A brilliant chess player attends a tournament and falls in love with a woman he meets there. On itself this would be a pretty bad angle on a story. So, there is more. There is the fact that the chess player is also completely alienated from the world because of his brilliance at the game and the fact there is some history haunting the player.

This film steps back and forth from romantic frivolity to tournament tension to historic events that shaped the chess player and works quite nicely. It's easy to grow attached to the two main characters and easy to believe they might hit it off together like the way they do in this film. The added effect of the tournament is very good too and creates a nice tension setting.

I have no idea of the strength of the chess players as I don't play the game myself but it looks nice and believable. All in all, most of the film goes down very easily. It is also forgotten again very easily though. So it's nice to watch but nothing more than that.

7 out of 10 chess players caught between a rook and a hard place",Positive "Problem with these type of movies is that literally dozens of them are being made each year. Luckily for use only a handful are given a theatrical release, while the others are being pushed straight to video or TV, such as this movie.

The foremost problem of this movie is really its originality. It's one of those movies which uses the ""Die Hard"" formula of a tough but troubled guy being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case it's a character played by Casper Van Dien, who works for a security agency that thoroughly test safety procedures for companies and individuals. In this case he's being send to a cruise ship, which of course gets hijacked. You can see this movie as a sort of mix of ""Die Hard"" and ""Air Force One"" and the movie doesn't even try to conceal that those two movies were probably its biggest source of 'inspiration'. So really, you can't regard this movie as an original one at all. It uses all of the clichés out of the book and this movie really doesn't offer any surprises or anything that remotely resembles anything original.

Like you can expect from a movie such as this, it has a very weak script. Or rather said, it features some very lazy writing. Like I said before, the movie features nothing original but also the actual story itself features some elements which are far from likely and are just plain ridicules truthfully. I mean, hijacking an huge cruise ship with only about 8 guys, of which halve only carry some small guns and then ask for a ransom of 'only' 10 million dollars, for a ship that is about worth 10 times that amount is itself already quite ridicules. How do they even intend to split that money afterward? Every person gets just over a million or something? That's hardly profitable for such a big and risky undertaking. And then there is the case of taking the passengers hostage. Somehow they manage to take all passengers on the huge ship hostage and they manage to put them inside one room, with only one guy with his pistol, which he can't even seem to be able to hold right, watching them. You never see more than like 30 hostages however, as if they were all the people who were aboard at the time. Also when the Van Dien character goes looking for his son and vice versa, no matter which room they walk in through on the huge cruise ship, they always bump into each other instantly. Just some examples of the lazy writing within the movie.

But it of course is an action flick, so the story of course becomes secondary. But then again, it's not as if this movie features any good action at all. Halve of the actors look as if they had never hold a weapon before and the movie is filled with some ridicules slow-motion. It really becomes laughable at points.

Of course the movie also doesn't feature the best actors, though I must say that Casper Van Dien really isn't a bad 'action hero' and actor, as far as the genre and B-movie circuit is concerned. He just however also suffers from the same problem as Tom Cruise; no matter how old he is, he just never looks convincing enough to play the father of a teenager. Van Dien once started out as a promising new young actor but starring in movies like this really doesn't help his career much. He's probably capable of something better, though he is never really given the right opportunity to show it. All of the other actors also do a fair enough job but their characters are just so formulaic that they never truly become interesting.

Oh well, it's not the worst genre movie I have ever seen but it also ain't exactly the most original or memorable one either.

4/10",Negative "Dan Katzir has produced a wonderful film that takes us on a roller-coaster ride through a real romance set in the troubles surrounding modern Israel.

For anyone who's ever been in love, the film brings back the uncertainties, the insecurities and heartache that make love so bitter-sweet. The atmosphere of fear and isolation that came with the difficult times in Israel at that time just serve to intensify the feeling. Instantly, you are drawn in to Dan's plight, and you can't fail to be deeply moved.

You can't write drama and passion like this - the contrast between the realities of Dan's desperate, snatched relationship with Iris, and the realities of a state in turmoil make this eminently watchable. If you have an ounce of passion, and have ever been in love, see this film.",Positive "This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.

Kudos!!!",Positive "If there is one film which is the worst of this year- it's TASHAN The first promo gave an indication that the film will be a boring Dhoom 2 style film, and well i knew first only it would be a bad film whatever it maybe Because of it being a Yashraj film Or maybe seeing the cheesy promo But this film gave me a shock, it was even worst then Dhoom 2 and what i expected First Saif's introduction which is boring Then Saif- Kareena meet, Kareena is so artificial and then Anil Kapoor oh god, what he is doing in such a weird film? What kinda role it is? What acting is he doing? His first scene is alright but then his act gets repetitive and he overacts Then came Akshay who provided some nice scenes, but then the film became more boring and with all the outdated stuff Childhood romance, overdose of childish Rajnikant style action scenes and all boring scenes The ending is another joke

Vijay Krishna Acharya would have got 3 films more to direct, if this film had worked, thats the strategy of yashraj, only money nothing else So Vijay is another addition to their list of crap filmmakers Music( Vishal Shekhar) is ordinary

Performances Akshay Kumar comes in the film as a whiff of fresh air, he actually provides some engaging moments Saif Ali Khan is irritating, Kareena is equally bad Anil Kapoor hams outrageously and spoils the show even more Rest are okay",Negative "on the contrary to the person listed above me i felt that this movie was really funny particularly in the scenes were there is a lot of mix up. i don't want to give the plot and the storyline away to the people that haven't watched it yet but i will say that Paresh Rawal does not have an extensive role such as past Priyadarshan movies, for example, Hera Pheri and Hungama. Paresh Rawal does an amazing part in the little role given to him, John Abraham does equally well, Akshay Kumar has proved that he is no less in this movie like he had from Waqt and almost all his movies after Andaaz. Even though all three heroins in this movie were at a debut they did a pretty good job of acting particularly Nargis who is very good looking and hot. i would say that if you liked Hungama or Hera Pheri this movie is a must watch.",Positive "This is a very good Spanish movie but I am worried that many out there will feel lost because many around the world have no idea what the Spanish Civil War was all about or when it was fought. Being a history teacher, I had a big advantage but could easily see how the film could be confusing until you piece together all the pieces. I doubt if this would be a big concern in Spain where this film was made, but for other audiences they may be a bit confused until later in the film.

The movie begins with 12 year-old Carol and her mother returning to her mother's home town. Years have passed and you gather that they are coming to Spain from New York City. Despite the strangeness, Carol speaks reasonably good Spanish and much of the film is about how she adapts. As for why her and her mother are alone, I'll spill it now for those who don't pick up on the fact that Carol's father is fighting in the war on the side of the Republicans (who eventually lost in this very bloody conflict).

The movie gets exceptional marks for its lovely camera work and music. The rather slow and rambling pace isn't bad provided you are someone who can accept films this way. I have seen several other Spanish films about this war and this compares pretty well to them--not better or worse--just a decent slice of life film about those who are left behind as well as a nice coming of age flick.

PS--If you don't know which side is which, the Republicans were mostly Socialists and they were backed by the Soviet Union and Mexico as well as volunteers from many countries (including the USA). The Nationalists were led by Franco and were aided by Portugal and the Fascist states of Germany and Italy.",Positive "Red Rock West is one of those tight noir thrillers we rarely see anymore. It's well paced, well acted and doesn't leave us with loose ends or unanswered questions so typical in this genre.

Nicolas Cage stars as Michael, an unemployed Texas roughneck, desperate enough for a job to drive all the way to Wyoming for potential employment. He is honest to a fault, but always on the dark side of fate.

After failing to obtain gainful employment, Michael stumbles into the Red Rock bar where the owner Wayne (J.T.Walsh) mistakes him for a contract killer he summoned from Dallas, hired to do in his lovely but lethal wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle).

Wayne gives Michael the necessary details and a down payment for the hit on the adulterous Suzie. With no intent on following through, Michael accepts the money and then sets out to warn Suzanne of her impending demise. He also mails a letter to the local sheriff exposing the plot and splits.

As fate would dictate, Michael is not going to be rid of the situation that easy. While leaving in a violent rainstorm, he runs down Suzannes lover. Of course Michael being Michael, he takes him to the local hospital where it's discovered that he's also been shot.

The sheriff is summoned and as luck would have it, Wayne is also the local law. Michael manages to escape while being taken on that last ride and is subsequently picked up by the real ""Lyle from Dallas"" played with murderous glee by the quirky Dennis Hopper. After discovering that they're fellow marines, Lyle insists that Michael join him for a drink at, where else, the Red Rock bar. There Wayne realizes his mistake and soon he and Lyle are in hot pursuit of Michael who falls willingly into Suzannes waiting arms.

As the pace picks up we learn that Wayne and Suzanne are really wanted armed robbers, on the lam for a multi million dollar theft. Getting the money now becomes the films central focus with a series of betrayals, double crosses and murders.

The film was very well cast. Nicolas Cage was typically low key, Dennis Hopper and Lara Flynn Bolye assumed their respective roles with more than ample ability. The best performance was by the late J.T. Walsh who was menacing without appearing to be. Walsh was a great character actor who left us much too soon.

Marc Reshoskys photography utilized many unique angles which added to the suspense and plot development. The film was further enhanced by John Dahl's tight directorial style and Morris Chestnut's rapid fire editing.",Positive "I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic ""Casper the Friendly Ghost"" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...

Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming ""A Ghost!""

Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...

The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.

I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon ""Peace on Earth,"" this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short.",Positive "So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons.",Positive "They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.",Negative "This is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen-- it has everything-- a genuinely touching screenplay, fine actors that make subtlety a beautiful art to watch, an actually elegant romance (it's a shame that that kind of romance just doesn't seem to exist anymore), lovely songs and lyrics (especially the final song), an artistic score, and costumes and sets that make you want to live in them. The ending was only a disappointment in that I was expecting a spectacular film to have a brilliant end-- but it was still more wonderful then the vast majority of movies out there. Definitely check this movie out-- over and over again. There are many details you miss the first time that deserve a second look.",Positive "First, an explanation: Despite my headline, I'm giving this film only 8 stars because overall this is NOT one of the best films ever made. All the criticisms registered here have valid points. Also, be warned that to enjoy the script you really need to appreciate Neil Simon's brilliance with finding the wit within real human banter. He does have a distinctively New York ear for dialogue -- especially dry, Jewish, love-suffused sarcasm -- and if you have trouble accepting sarcasm as an expression of love, then you might have trouble accepting the optimism at the heart of this movie.

So much for warnings. Here's my main point: Walter Matthau is flat-out perfect, even beyond perfect, in this movie. I have never seen him funnier, or more touching for that matter -- because at the same time that he shows us the hilariousness of this character who refuses to give up his Big Star self-image or insufferable attitudes even as his coherence is in decline, he also shows us the more vulnerable, maybe even heartbreakingly scared person inside the grouch. And he only barely shows us that sad part -- it's just enough to really get to you if you happen to be coping with your own father's or husband's mental decline right now (I mention this as a warning), but artistically, it's just enough pathos to give this character the most authentically deep roots I'm seen in possibly any film performance. This is beyond Method acting -- Matthau's performance is exquisite as character work and a pure delight as comic delivery. This is a masterpiece of comic acting.

About Richard Benjamin: I personally find his acting annoying in general, and his work in this movie is no exception -- although he has some fine moments here. (""Chicken is funny...."" is one of them.) So if you like him, you should like him here, and if you don't this movie won't change your mind.

About the 1976 Oscars...I agree that Matthau was unfortunate to be up against Nicholson in ""Cuckoo's Nest"" that year. It was a killer year for leading-actor competition; if only there were separate Oscars for comedy and drama, then I think the Best Actor Oscars would have gone to Al Pacino for ""Dog Day Afternoon"" and to Walter Matthau for ""The Sunshine Boys"" -- not to dis Jack's fine work as McMurphy, but I think that Pacino and Matthau were each CLEARLY more masterful and astoundingly effective and downright legendary in their performances than Nicholson was that year. Also, I believe that Burns got the Supporting Actor Oscar more for sentimental reasons than for the quality of his performance -- I mean, he was good in this movie, but not THAT good. (Burns's fine-as-ever but unexceptional-in-itself return to show biz beat Brad Dourif's truly brilliant debut in ""Cuckoo's Nest,"" not to mention Chris Sarandon's stunning debut in ""Dog Day Afternoon"" -- which I think proves my theory.)

Oscar theories aside, here's my bottom line review: If you like Matthau's comic acting, then see this movie and savor his powerhouse tirades and wonderful grandmother-inspired gestures, fleeting facial expressions and seemingly unscripted asides. (But if you're currently dealing with the pain of watching an old person lose his grip, then be warned that this movie might either be the comic relief you need or a dose of reality too painful to watch right now.)",Positive "This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.",Negative "Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.

This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.

A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.

If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it ""a right laff"". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.

And one question, when the group left the ""boring"" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?",Negative "This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.",Positive "While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.",Negative "I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!",Negative "Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, ""Ahh.."" The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her ""lawyer"", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.

This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery.",Positive """What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?"" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of ""Reversal of Fortune"" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? ""Money can't buy you happiness?"" ""The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?"" Or how about, ""Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude."" They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, ""What happens when you take down a stop sign?""",Negative "I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for.",Positive "AKA: Mondays In The Sun

I have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.

I have read reviews touting the performances herein as ""wonderful,"" ""beautiful,"" and ""heroic."" I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.

All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.

It rates a ZERO/10 from...

the Fiend :.",Negative "This movie is supposed to be a ""lighthearted"" tale about Santa Claus and his ""magical and mystical"" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the ""evil rep. of Satan"" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie.",Negative "When we talk Hollywood Hotel we could be talking about one of three things, the actual hotel, the radio program, and this film which was partially inspired by the first two. Dick Powell was the host of the Hollywood Hotel program on CBS radio network in which Louella Parsons dished out the weekly scoop on the stars.

Powell and Parsons debuted the Hollywood Hotel program in 1934 so by 1937 it had its fair share of the radio audience. Powell hosted, sang, and kibitzed with Louella and her movie star guests. With the power she had with her column, she was able to get the various stars to go on and plug their latest films for nothing.

Then the American Federation of Radio Artists stepped in and demanded she pay wages accordingly and they won the case. That ended the Hollywood Hotel program in 1938. Of course both Powell and Louella went on to other radio venues. The whole story is covered in the Tony Thomas book, The Films Of Dick Powell.

But before the plug was pulled this film came out from Powell's home studio of Warner Brothers inspired by the radio program. Powell plays a singer/saxophonist with the Benny Goodman band who gets signed to a Hollywood contract. But when he gets out to Hollywood he gets himself tangled up with an egotistical film star Lola Lane, her lookalike double real life sister Rosemary Lane, and a ham actor in Alan Mowbray.

When Mowbray is called upon to sing in a Civil War epic he's making with Lola Lane, it's Powell's voice they use. Then Mowbray develops a Lina Lamont problem when he's asked to go on the Hollywood Hotel radio program, broadcast from the Hollywood Hotel. That's got the studio in a tizzy. Let's say the problem isn't solved the way it is Singing In The Rain, but Powell's manager Ted Healy proves to be resourceful.

Richard Whiting and Johnny Mercer provide a really nice score for the film. The big hit song comes right at the beginning as the Benny Goodman band with scat singing Johnnie Davis sing Hollywood's anthem, Hooray for Hollywood. My favorite however is Powell and Rosemary Lane singing, I'm Like A Fish Out Of Water. Just listening to Johnny Mercer's lyrics about Ginger Rogers running the Brooklyn Dodgers or Sally Rand without her fan, it's a compendium of American popular culture in the Thirties.

Busby Berkeley does the choreography here and while the film doesn't have the soaring imaginary stuff that his earlier work with Warner Brothers has, the numbers are well staged. Berkeley's big moment is in a drive-in eatery where Powell and Healy have been forced to take jobs. The number starts with Benny Goodman broadcasting from the Hollywood Hotel doing Let That Be A Lesson To You and then at the drive-in Powell, Lane and the entire place start joining in song to the exasperation of owner Edgar Kennedy. And you know what you can expect from Edgar Kennedy exasperation.

Benny Goodman gets to show why he was named the King Of Swing when the band with drummer Gene Krupa and xylophonist Lionel Hampton as part of his ensemble. That together with Frances Langford singing as well. And possibly the last surviving cast member of the group was a fellow who had a small bit as a radio announcer. He died in 2004, but not before he became the 40th President of the United States. Ronald Reagan always credited Dick Powell and Pat O'Brien as being the two guys on Warner Brothers who were the most helpful to an eager young player looking to make his mark.

Hollywood Hotel is one delightful and entertaining motion picture, dated, but charmingly so.",Positive "Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.

In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..

This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.

",Negative "A film that can make you shed tears of sadness and tears of joy would be considered quite a step in the career of a common filmmaker. The fact is, Steven Spielberg, probably our greatest story-teller, has been doing this in various movie formats for years. THE COLOR PURPLE, at the time, was considered risky, especially after action classics like JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. In hindsight, this film should have come as no surprise, for Spielberg had made us cry tears of joy and sadness in E.T. Critics called COLOR PURPLE his entrance into intellectual fare. It is quite an entrance. No special effects, no swashbuckling, just brilliant story-telling based on a literary classic by Alice Walker. One surprise is how Spielberg could present such a moving film about African-Americans in the deep south. Slavery is gone, but in the south depicted here, it seems as though blacks are using other blacks as slaves.

Spielberg is always put down for sentimentalizing his pictures or adding an element of childishness to please the audience. This is really the first of overlooked films from his career that you cannot make these observations. It is the first in a line of films people either didn't see or wouldn't see because there are no aliens. EMPIRE OF THE SUN, ALWAYS, SCHINDLER'S LIST, etc.. His awesome talent is obvious with this specific picture because A) he uses mostly untrained, first-time actors, B) he tackles a subject most felt was unadaptable to the screen, and C) it is pure drama with no strings pulled where characters grow and change over the passage of roughly 30 years. It is almost epic-like in look and scope and the fact that it did not garner a single Academy Award from 11 nominations is a travesty and an insult.

Whoopi Goldberg is fabulous as the tortured Celie, an unattractive woman given away by her incestuous father to an abusive Danny Glover, who she only knows as ""Mister"". The film follows a path of occasional beatings and mental torture she goes through while with ""Mister"". The PG-13 rated film is pretty open to the sexual issues raised by the Walker novel. This is not ""The Burning Bed"" in Georgia by any means. There is no blatant revenge taken as might be expected. It happens gracefully. Goldberg perfectly plays a human being, someone in need of love and someone who deserves it. The films' most poignant and heartbreaking moment comes when Goldberg and her sister, Nettie (played by Akosua Busia) are separated, maybe forever. (Possibly foreshadowing Holocaust separation of child and parent?) You may have to check for a pulse if you are not moved by this sequence.

The color purple stands for the beauty of the fields and flowers surrounding these poor people. There really is something to live for, but love triumphs over all. Spielberg bashers take note: the guy can make an unforgettable classic without any cute aliens.

RATING: 10 of 10",Positive "Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of ""not humans"". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.",Negative "The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two.

The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are.

Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything.

But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never.

The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it.

But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann.

What a great, great director.

See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.

Thanks, Anthony.",Negative "I have never panned a film on-line, but I felt moved to do so, after seeing this one. One doesn't show up at someone's funeral and say to the bereaved, ""My relatives died, so why should I care about yours?""

Minus the propaganda, there was little, if anything, that could be called ""art."" As the daughter of deaf parents, I was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. Any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated, not ignored it.

The word ""chutzpah"" comes to mind. As a writer, there are few subjects I would stay away from: the Holocaust is one; this is another. I wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept).",Negative "I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its ""killer cut"" of ""more gore! more sex!"" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?

It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they ""cut"" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.

From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!",Negative "I caught the last half of this movie on cable one night and was struck by just how morbid it was. Even when one of the two victims is at his most deteriorated, the camera keeps going. the lingering shots of his corpse being uncovered and his concentration-camp figure being zipped into a body bag are both moving and depressing. don't watch this movie if your already depressed. then again don't watch it if your feeling really good.",Positive "Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) has just been dumped by his wife, because he is one of the most annoying , neurotic people in the world. Suicide is his way out, but he just can't seem to get it to work, so he heads over to his friends house. Oscar Madison (Walther Matthau) is also recently divorced and living it up in bachelor heaven. Smoking, gambling, hitting on chicks, eating out and never cleaning is paradise to him. Well, with the suicide attempts Oscar decides to let Felix move in. At first, it is a match made in heaven, Felix cooks and cleans and helps Oscar pay his alimony on time, but soon Oscar is jonesing for women and Felix (who in today's world would probably be gay) isn't ready to move on. They invite a couple of British birds over and they find Felix so tender that soon they and Felix are weeping and chatting about his family life, leaving Oscar denied. This is it, he explodes and throws him out, but Felix isn't as helpless as it seems, and soon he has the upper hand. My favorite quote ""You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. ""We're all out of cornflakes. F.U."" Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!"" Based on a Neil Simon play (who also wrote the screenplay), this has a certain theatre feel to it. Set and the repartee and looks feel quite play-like (for better or worse). Lemmon and Mathau have excellent comedic chemistry and have appeared in the Grumpier Old Men movies and Out to Sea, reprising the same finicky/slob roles, but with different names (to avoid royalty issues, I'm sure).

This movie is like strawberries dipped in chocolate. The chocolate is smooth, sweet and rich, the strawberry is tart, juicy and bright red (unless you get those nasty greenish ones). They are almost polar opposites, but together, the contrasts highlight each other and make a wonderful dessert. 7/10

http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies",Positive "I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America.",Positive "This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?

Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way.

Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..

It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.

I liked this movie ..",Positive its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.

biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have,Negative "This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10",Positive "Oh my, this was the worst reunion movie I have ever seen. (That is saying a lot.) I am ashamed of watching.

What happened in the script meetings? ""Ooooooh, I know! Let's have two stud muffins fall madly in love with the Most-Annoying-Character-Since-Cousin-Oliver."" ""Yeah, that'll be cool!""

Even for sitcoms, this was the most implausible plot since Ron Popeil starting spray painting bald men.",Negative "I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.",Negative "When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch!

The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue!

The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess!

I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!

By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.

Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.",Negative "wow, the Naked Brothers Band. What should i say. I guess i can say this show just sucks. number one: they have no talent, they probably can't even play the instruments. number 2: on the commercial it said they were famous but nobody even heard of them till there crappy show came on. Look, i really don't hate it that bad, i'd give it like a 4 out of 10, but what annoys me is how everyone says they have such great talent and Nat is SO deep and writes deep lyrics. Deep my ass! he talks about hardcore wrestlers with inner feelings. wow, i could read what it says on the walls of a bathroom and it would be more deep than that. And they didn't get famous by themselves, their parents are famous celebrities and wanted their kids to be too so they made up a bad show. i have a feeling that it will be canceled soon.",Negative "I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, ""If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!"" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!",Positive "The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.

However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.

It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.",Positive """Ko to tamo peva"" is one of the best films I ever saw. A tragicomedy with very deep implications on the fate of humankind shown through the eyes of seemingly very plain and common people from a God-forsaken Serbian province just before the start of the World War II. I saw it in a small movie theater in Russia where the film had had a very limited distribution, and I had no chance to come across it ever since. It is such a pity that this excellent film is almost forgotten now. I searched for a VHS or DVD copy of it many times, and alas - could find none. I would be most grateful to other fans of this little gem of movie-making for a suggestion of the ways to purchase a copy.",Positive "This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent ""giallio"" ""Torso"", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In ""La Sanguinusa conduce la danza"", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.",Negative "Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.

This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.

OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.

3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.",Negative "And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in ""Celebrity."" It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.

This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.",Negative "I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.

The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.

In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST.",Positive "This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.",Negative "I did not read anything about the film before I watched it, by chance, last Saturday evening. And then, as I was watching it, I felt the misery of Lena and Boesman into my bones. I was so captivated by the acting and the tone and the filming that I listened only partially to the dialogues. My husband fell asleep soon after we went to bed and I was sleepless, under the impact of the film. I wanted to wake him up just to say:""if I would ever vote for an Oscar nomination, it would be for these two actors."" I decided to wait until the next day. Then I read more about the film on IMDb, and was sad to learn that Mr. Berry died before the release of the film and that he had probably never seen the last version of his brilliant masterpiece. I still want to tell him that to me his film was a true independent film, in its concept and spirit. The actors are to be praised not only for their brilliant performance but for accepting a part with no shine, no showing off, well to the contrary, displaying the true image of human depression. Sad but poignant.",Positive "Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).

Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.",Negative "Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.",Negative "This movie was so great! I am a teenager, and I and my friends all love the series, so it just goes to show that these movies draw attention to all age crowds. I recommend it to everyone. My favorite line in this movie is when Logan Bartholomew says: ""rosy cheeks"", when he is talking about his baby daughter. He is such a great actor, as well as Erin Cottrell. They pair up so well, and have such a great chemistry! I really hope that they can work again together. They are such attractive people, and are very good actors. I have finally found movies that are good to watch. Lately it has been hard for me to find movies that are good, and show good morals, and Christian values. But at the same time, these movies aren't cheesy.",Positive "There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have ""clairvoyance"". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all...",Positive "I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.

Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better.",Positive A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made,Negative "A delight mini movie, a musical short based on three of Cole Porter's Broadway smash songs. Bob Hope's first credited film is a delight! He plays an American playboy millionaire on vacation in Paris. The film opens with him sitting at a table of an out door café telling his friends about this beauty that takes his breath away. Suddenly he spots her a few yards away. he is so over come his friends tease him and suggest ""just show her your bank book."" But Hope claims he can win her in less than 30 days with ""no"" money! They bet polo ponies over the issue and take all his cash and ID's. Hope follows her and when they are alone gushes out a proposal she does not believe he is sincere until he sings to her, ""You Do Something to Me"" by Cole Porter. But she must leave and he tries to earn money as a tour guide so he can pursue her. But when she sees him showing another girl around town, disillusioned she wants to drop him. He continues to chase her and catches up to her and her family at a race track where he bets his meager earnings on the last race hoping to win enough to impress her. Through a series of events and large synchronized dance numbers he loses the winning ticket and she decides to marry him rich or poor. So he wins the girl, the race and the bet and sings two more songs!",Positive "SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:

Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are ""getting to know each other,"" bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, ""Have you heard of the HIV virus?"" and it sounds about as natural as asking, ""Have you communicated with the nine alien races?""

Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).

Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: ""They don't work, man!"" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas.

Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.

In sum: Beware!",Negative "I sat through this film and i have to say it only just managed to keep my attention. The film would have been a bit more bearable if i did not have to watch the awful CGI, for future reference to the industry if your going to use CGI watch this so you know what to avoid.

Apparently this is supposed to be a graphic novel for the screen but all i saw was a bad movie which bears no resemblance to a graphic novel whatsoever.

All in all, the story was not as bad as the CGI, i was quite impressed with the acting and thought the casting was good and little more character info would have been nice as it did get a little confusing for me on occasion but that's not surprising as like i said it only just kept my attention, but in all honestly i wish i had given this one a miss.",Negative "Although John Woo's hard Boiled is my number 1 favorite movie. But i have to say police story is my number 2 favorite movie. I say this because the stunts, the fights and the action my favorite part of the movie is when Jackie Chan jumps off the rail at the top of the esculator at the mall grabs on to a pole surrounded with Chrismas lights and slid down the pole fell through a skylight and finally land on his back on the hard marble floor. OUCH! Buy it at amazon.com for 14:98. (Or something in 14 dollars.)VHS new line home video. any questions or comments please feel free to reply. (i'm only 14 but i know where you can find any movie ever made.) if you looking everywhere for a movie and can't find it please reply to me. Thank you and good night!",Positive "My personal feeling is that you cannot divorce this movie from its political/historical underpinnings like so many (American) reviewers tend to do. This is not about growing up on Main Street, USA. It is about growing up in Yugoslavia at a time when it was torn between the East and the West. Just like the guys are torn between Esther and everybody else, and Esther is torn between the ""Tovarish Joe"" and the guys. There is shame in certain situations that is lost on an audience that has never lived under Tito. I feel the movie is under-rated and it is too bad we have lost the director. Movies like this make freedom feel more important. It is not just ""another Eastern European coming of age film""...it is a sensitive portrayal of teenagers walking a fine line that might eventually lead them to real freedom.",Positive "Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.

The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot.",Negative "My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.

We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.

There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say ""hey, being mentally disabled is funny."" Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.

The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool?",Negative "In 1948 this was my all-time favorite movie. Betty Grable's costumes were so ravishing that I wanted to grow up to be her and dress like that. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., was irresistible as the dashing Hungarian officer. Silly and fluffy as this movie might appear at first, when I was eight years old it seemed to me to say something important about relations between men and women. I saw it again the other day; I was surprised to find that it still did.",Positive "The title song for this movie ...........is the greatest free spirited ballad ever written! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I first saw this movie back in 1978-79 when I first subscribed to cable. In 1979 cable was just starting to become common place in homes. (or at least that when it was becoming common here in Missouri).

This might very well be the first movie I ever watched on the pay channel called ""The Movie Channel"" - which was called ""The Star Channel"" back then, they changed the name to ""The Movie Channel"" in the early 1980's........I received a free month of ""The Star Channel"" with my new cable subscription. ""The Van"" was one of the movies that was in heavy rotation on that network at that time.

I remember watching this movie back then, and thinking it was a typical teen flick(along the same lines as other medium budget teen flicks) ...the ones where the plot revolves around nudity and parties.

I totally forgot that this movie even existed until I recently seen this movie again after having not seeing it for decades( I found a copy of it on DVD for sale in cheap bin) I recognized it, and bought it for a mere $4.99.

Seems like I had remembered this film being much better that it was(is). However watching it back then was a different experience than watching now(30+ years later).

It was fun to see the kids listing to rock n roll music, smoking weed, and having sex in the back a fancy van(often all at the same time). This is what a good teen party movie should be.

There isn't much of a plot other than the fact that the main character fantasizes about having sex with his arch rivals good looking girlfriend ...he blows all of his college savings money to purchase a tricked out Dodge Van(with shag carpet walls . mirrored ceiling and a water bed in it)to get her attention, and he eventually gets to have sex with her. But his arch rival finds out and comes looking for him (so that the two of them can settle their differences by drag racing their vans)....he and his arch rival end up wrecking both of their vans, and instead of stealing away his arch rivals girlfriend, he wins over the heart of a preppy(lesser attractive) girl that he half/ass dates through most of the movie and he decides he is happier/better off and the movie ends.

the movie does have it's funny moments. But watching this movie 30+ years later, it becomes more of a trip down memory lane. Because I still can remember Pizza parlors, pinball arcades, It also brought back memories of cruising around a small town while we smoked pot as we would yell at good looking girls and hoping to get laid (sometimes I'd get lucky and get some decent looking girl to share a joint with me and we'd screw in the backseat afterwords, I also remember many of the songs in this move(when they were new)......this movie serves as a perfect time capsule for that era in those regards (brought back lots of memories)

the one thing that is depicted in this movie that I honestly can not remember is ....I never remember a time when full sized vans were as popular as this film depicts them as being. I remember that era very well, and I don't young men going around wishing they had a van. Instead I remember young men in the 70's (self included) wanting a Pontiac Trans Am, Chevy Camaro or a hot rod Ford Mustang, but never a van. This movie makes it appear as if vans were most popular item going and that every young man wanted one(which just wasn't true of that era)",Negative "This film was so bad i had to fast forward most of it to get to the good bits. Hah what good bits? the only bit that was worth it was the ending (those who have seen the film will know what i mean). I expected a lot from this film like a underworld meets dawn of the dead meets Freddy vs. Jason but what i got was this crap. Story was forgettable, the cast was used badly and what was the director thinking when he made this. This could have been a great but i turned out to be the most boring film i have ever watched. OK so what if there was a nice bit of T and A, I was after the gore and i was bitterly disappointed. Don't expect a film thats good but if you want a bad cheesy horror then by all means watch this and see how a horror movie SHOULDN'T BE DONE.",Negative "The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and clichéd. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching.",Positive "WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the ""Witch of Capri.""

Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted.

BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!",Negative "While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama.

The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.

A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.

7 or 8 out of 10.",Positive "This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out ""Rowan!?"" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).",Negative "It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.

Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky ""comments"" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement.

In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye.

As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them.",Negative "This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss ""TRUE CRIMES"" or ""THE HURRICANE"". My wife and me gave 8/10.",Positive "When his in-laws are viciously murdered by a gang of thugs, a young deputy is ordered to escort his mute friend, forced to take the rap by the gang, to Tucson for trial and ending up having to face the real killers along the way.

The Decoy is a real-life decoy sent to video stores to lure you away from better films! It's talky, illogical, slow, and ultimately very boring.

There's some good costumes, sets, and photography but nothing else is good about this vanity project from writer/director/producer/star Justin Kreinbrink, who apparently had too much money on his hands.

They used to make westerns like this, that were under an hour long. Trim this of about half it's length and you might have something watchable.",Negative A very good wartime movie showing the effects of war on a hometown boy who looses his eyesight on Guadalcanal and must come home and re-adjust himself with the help of family and friends. An excellent cast of actor's helps make this movie very entertaining. Eleanor Parker's role as the girlfriend was worthy of an Oscar nomination. She has such an innocence to her in this movie. Ann Doran role was equally satisfying as was all of her small supporting roles. I especially like the hometown aura of pre-war Phildelphia. The hunting scene is very good. Of course the war scene on Guadalcanal truly showed the horror faced by our soldiers during this epic battle. A well deserving film and one that should not be forgotten,Positive "I've spent years looking for a copy of this film(16mm,dvd,vhs), so I could show it to my kids. The movie is funny, and Spike and the members of his band show why they were the best musicians in the business. They had to be that good to play that demented. I like it and recommend it for movie lovers of all ages.

The movie is about a turn of the century firehouse, with a crew of misfits that are firemen and the department band (when not fighting the fires). There's the usual running gags, plus the mayhem of Spike Jones and his Orchestra. Also, comedy relief provided by comedian Buddy Hackett and straight-man Hugh O'Brien.",Positive "WRITTEN ON THE WIND, directed by Douglas Sirk and released in 1956, is like all of Sirk's mid 50's films- pure melodrama. Yet it is engrossing, richly developed melodrama, and Sirk's trademark lurid colour expressionism, throbbing, barely repressed emotions, symbolism and juxtaposition of the classes make this a film to crave.

The film opens brilliantly, with the four central characters and the plot being introduced as the credits are still rolling. Sirk uses a clever flashback structure to take us into his world...

Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are magnificent as the two Hadley ""kids"", Kyle and Marylee. He drinks and sleeps around with women. She drinks and sleeps around with men. They both are worth millions, thanks to the Hadley oil business. Hunky, yet poor, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is Kyle's lifelong friend, and Marylee's dream lover. Enter into this sordid mess Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall), a slim, attractive young woman who falls under Kyle's charms after he picks up a phone and flies her across the countryside one evening. Mitch loves her too, but Kyle wins her. They quickly marry, and Kyle stops drinking. But fate seems to be written on the wind, and it is not long before a conniving Marylee (who will ""have Mitch"", marriage or no marriage), a secretly smitten Mitch, the confused Lucy and the sad drunk Kyle come to blows....

Malone is just wonderful as Marylee Hadley, thoroughly deserving her Best Supporting Actress Oscar. She steals every scene she is in. Stack is almost just as good, amping up the melodrama, while still maintaining subtly and quiet desperation. Hudson and Bacall are a lot more restrained than those two, yet it is in keeping with the characters they play.

So, what's all this melodrama really about it? Well, a lot of things. Stack's powerful portrait of male inadequacy and fear, for one thing. Sirk surrounds Stack with phallic symbols throughout the film- note his tiny little gun, the oil derricks and the ultimate phallic symbol, Kyle's seeming inability to conceive children. Stack seems to be suffering from a massive male superiority complex, made worse by his father's preference for Hudson, his sister's desire for Hudson, and his suspicion that his wife is carrying on with Hudson. With all this wealth Kyle Hadley still ends up at the wrong end of town, buying cheap corn liquor like a ""bum"".

It's about impossible dreams, and having to let go of them. The river where Kyle, Marylee and Mitch used to play when they were kids is constantly referenced throughout the film, symbolising Kyle and (especially) Marylee's wish for the innocence and simplicity of youth. In an excellent melodramatic scene, perfectly pulled off by Malone, Marylee's stands by the river and imagines herself again as a child, with voice-over of Mitch telling Marylee that she will always be his girl. This is where Sirk strikes a huge emotional chord with the viewer. Who hasn't dreamed about going back to that special place in childhood? Who hasn't, at some point, lived on a treasured memory? Who hasn't wanted something they couldn't have? And Hudson's last line of the film (yes, he gets no dialogue in the last 10 or so minutes, only close-ups) recollects on how ""far we've come from the river, Marylee"". Amazing.",Positive "The greatest sin in life is being dull, and this movie is crashingly boring. its funny, its left out of his ""a life in film"" documentary. He goes from a long piece on ""Stardust Memories"" and then fast forwards to ""Zelig"". This little piece of cubic zirconia just isn't worth the effort.",Negative "Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.

It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.

This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.

Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his ""The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover"" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.

Another good film by Greenaway was ""A zed and two noughts"". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.

The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is ""Brazil"". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!

Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books.",Negative Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows.

Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.

In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.,Negative "The DVD for ""Danaza Macabra"" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.

The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.

A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.

This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.

The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.

Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot.",Positive "There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word "" Choice "" is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.

So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : "" A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems "" This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief

Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it .",Positive "Let's start this review out on a positive note -- I am very glad they didn't decide to wimp out with Tony being shot and do a retrospective season like some people were rumoring. Actually, creator and writer of this episode David Chase did quite the opposite. We don't actually know if Tony will live or die. He's in a coma and his chances of recovering are very slim to none. This episode seemed to move very slow, and the coma induced dream Tony was in involving mistaken identity and robed Asian monks slapping the sh*t out of him was absolutely, flat-out weird. After 45-minutes I got a little sick of everyone grieving, but that shouldn' t be a reason to slam this episode. It was a weird and unpredictable episode, but it was still well-written and intense. Edie Falco gave an astounding career-defining performance in this episode as the conflicted wife having to face with her husband's could-be demise. I also found it interesting AJ dropped out of school and swore a vendetta against Junior, which AJ most likely won't have the balls to pull off. Silvio is now acting-boss which opens numerous doors to problems in later episodes. There were a lot of great quips in this episode, also, and I think Vito 'Pole-Smoker' Spadafore may meet his demise if he keeps being a greedy S.O.B.

This wasn't a great episode and disappointed only because even though Tony kills people, we as an audience adore him and feel he is our hero of the show. This was a necessary episode for the series, even though it was a little snore inducing towards the conclusion. Kudos to Edie Falco's performance, and David Chase and the writers for creating this wholly original and unpredictable plot twist. This is the only season of 'The Sopranos' where I haven't a f*cking clue where it is going to go. I can't wait for next week's episode. My Rating: 7.5/10

Best Line of the Episode: (Paulie to AJ): ""Let's go, Van Helsing!""",Positive "I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.

Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.",Negative "Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young.",Positive "Let's cut to the chase: this movie is softcore pornography marketed for the masses under a name that the studio is milking every last penny out of the American Pie teat. Period.

The whole plot (and that shouldn't imply that there's a whole lot to go around) serves as a vehicle to show the audience more boobs and sex scenes.

If you're a Tween guy, and you're too squeamish to purchase actual pornography, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, the movie doesn't have much to offer at all.

The acting is sub-par, the character development is virtually non-existent, and the story is a nonsensical knarl of nudity, binge drinking and pranks (none of which are particularly memorable).

Go buy real porn if that's what you want to see, and if not, go watch a GOOD movie. Animal House, Kids, or even the original American Pie are all great cinematic works, and all of them contain heavy alcohol use and nudity.

""It's not how much, it's how you use it""",Negative "I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both ""Happy Days"" and ""The Wonder Years"" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show",Negative "Diagnosis Murder is one of the only programs i watch regularly on TV now. The way all of the main characters have something to do in each of the episodes makes it so unlike today's shows where they concentrate on 1 or 2 people per episode and everyone else is shoved to the side. The way mark's brain works is also so obscure that you never really know what he is thinking, and if you think you do, you are wrong.

Diagnosis Murder has tackled a diverse range of topics, not just in the cases but in each of the characters personal lives. Everything from racism and adoption, to terrorists and technology.

As for it being for old people? I am 24!! I don't think i can be classed as old yet.

I just want to know when they will be releasing all 8 seasons on DVD (not NTSC) so that i can watch them all in order. They seem to be doing it with lots of other programs from the same era so can they hurry it up a bit!",Positive "This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended..",Positive "I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.",Negative "Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.

The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.

All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.

The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.

Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.",Negative "You know you're in for something different when a movie has Christopher Walken playing the part of a professional hit man - and he isn't even one of the bad guys! Although it could do with some judicious trimming here and there, ""Man on Fire"" is a generally effective crime drama that ranges in tone from the openly sentimental to the downright brutal - and just about every tone imaginable in between.

Denzel Washington stars as Creasy, a former CIA assassin who has recently quit the business and is seeking some sort of redemption for the sins he's committed. So far, he's been looking for answers in a bottle and the Bible and not doing all that well with either. As the movie opens, Mexico City has been ravaged by a series of kidnappings aimed at the powerful and well-to-do, possibly perpetrated by the very police force assigned to keep law and order in the community. Creasy accepts the position as bodyguard to the daughter of a wealthy business owner who rightly fears for her safety. The first third of the film is devoted to the growing friendship between Creasy and his charge, Pita, a sweet little girl who, slowly but surely, works her way into Creasy's initially hardened heart and affections. The last two-thirds of the film turns into an Avenging Angel melodrama, as Creasy systematically seeks out and eliminates all those responsible for a tragedy that occurs early on in the story.

Based on the novel by A.J Quinnell, ""Man on Fire,"" astutely written by Brian Helgeland and flashily directed by Tony Scott, is a coolly efficient action picture that never shies away from the raw brutality of its subject matter. It takes a risk in asking us to identify with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, achieving his redemption by torturing and murdering (admittedly disreputable) people. These scenes of carnage and violence are both intense and suspenseful, even if they do at times border on the exploitative. Even better are the quiet, intimate moments between Creasy and Pita in the early parts of the movie. Washington and the wonderful Dakota Fanning establish an natural, easygoing rapport that helps to set the stage for the chaos and turmoil to follow.

Washington carries the movie with his quality of stoic righteousness, making us understand his character on an emotional level even if what he is doing eludes us intellectually. In addition to the two leads, there are solid performances from Walken, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini. But it is Washington and the delightful Ms. Fanning who steal the show.

""Man on Fire"" would have been better with about a half hour taken out its running time, but this is still a better-than-average crime thriller.",Positive "After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10",Negative "In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.

Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!

Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.

Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.

Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.",Negative "Brilliant movie. The drawings were just amazing. Too bad it ended before it begun. I´ve waited 21 years for a sequel, but nooooo!!!",Positive "An incredible little English film for so many reasons. First it's a rare look a Laurence Olivier in a light comedy. While his performance is not up the standard he would latter set as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century, he is perfectly believable as the hoodwinked barrister. Historically this film is of great interest because of both where and when it was shoot. Being English it didn't have the big budget of the Hollywood films of the same era and it often shows, but more interesting is the fact this movie filmed just prior to the war and shows an England that would soon be gone. When we watch it today we think in terms of modern morality and over look the fact that this movie and its closest American counter part `It Happened One Night' were in their day as risqué as `Fatal Instinct' was in our time. But after watching and enjoying this movie the first time I can't help but feel sadness when I watch it today. With half of film shoot before 1950 gone, saving the remaining films means hard choices, and unfortunately films like this are often passed over to save movies that we all consider important. The color shifting, lack of contrast, and generally poor quality of the print most often seen is heartbreaking. This movie along with `It Happened One Night' are perfect to curl up with a love one under a blanket on cool a cool evening and watch, or better yet why not a double feature.",Positive "After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.",Positive "I may be getting ahead of myself here, but although the film itself was a technical masterpiece for its time, I watched it piece-by-piece on TCM last night, the question arises to me: Why did they do that? putting their lives in jeopardy, many of them died on the trek, why would they undertake such a life-endangering journey, just to find food for their animals (!) once they reached the ""land of milk and honey"", why didn't they just stay there? Would you endanger your life, and that of your entire community, just to find food for a herd of cattle? As dangerous as it was, to do it for that purpose alone, shows the inbred simplicity of these types of people. Risk death for a cow?? Better them than I!",Positive "Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen.",Positive "I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending ""falling while running away"" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams ""Noooo"" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.",Negative "This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud.",Negative "I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.",Negative "I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then ""thats Great Television""!",Positive "Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.

The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.

The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.

However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too ""slow"", but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.

Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and ""louder"" but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again...",Positive "At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.",Negative "This movie was seriously awful. The acting was the worst! It was worse than a student film. Super cheesy, and I think the worst actor was the old lady. At first I thought to myself, well it's an old movie. Then I remembered that that is no excuse! I've seen older movies with way better acting and such.

The music was terrible to. It was really choppy. The editing was poor (most of the dialog was out of sync.)

Overall, this movie doesn't even deserve a 1. I only watched it because I was so bored, and the movie hardly entertained me. It was just laughable. My dead grandmother's left pinkie toe could make a better movie than this.",Negative "My mom and I have just recently become addicted to this show, laughing our butts off! I've only seen about 10 episodes, and I am disappointed that I didn't pay attention to this hilarious series before they were canceled! The story line is very funny, the characters really have great personalities (or, not so great, but they're still funny!). I TiVO every episode of What I Like About You. Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth, as well as all of the cast, never leave me bored while watching! There is some unsuitable language for children and some sexual content, but with a parental guide near, you shouldn't have too much problems. There is some sort of 'Friends' type of relationship that attracts me to this show. I really enjoy it.",Positive "Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!",Negative "Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.",Negative "Well I have to say that I have waited for it to come.

I won't try to spoil it and quite a few people have really brilliantly spoken of the pilot. On the other hand I'm not quite sure to understand the detractors who claim themselves to be BSG fans and not like the pilot.

What the frack did they expect?!! The background is setting 50 years before BSG we are there o assist at the birth of the Cylons, see the life of the Adama family (has we already knew some of it from BSG), get a deeper explanation of the Caprican population and its perception of the other colonies, and potentially the origins of the Gods belief of the human and the unique God belief of the Cylons.

I do not expect the same profusion of special effect or space opera as the in the previous series, I make the difference between the two although I know that Caprica will reinforce BSG.

This is 1h30 of promising start, I believe as well that this will put pressure for the scenarios to be as good as BSG. I expect a lot from the following but I have no reasons to doubts that we will learn a lot more.

Watching the DVD's deleted scene also gives more material for your brain to chew on.

Looking forward to January 2010",Positive "As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as ""You've Got Mail"", with Tom Hanks and Meg""Trout Pout"" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.

The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.

If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.",Negative "This has to be, hands down, hats off, one of the most uproarious comedies ever made. Starting with the animated blowing, popping bubbles, the entrance to the Daytime Awards, the usual phony drivel spewed by the stars on the red carpet, the rehearsed and badly acted acceptance speech, the venomous comments uttered by the actor's jealous co-stars and producer, under phony smiles. Now THAT is only in the first few minutes. Then, all hell breaks loose from there and it only gets more frantic and ridiculous. Ridiculous in a good way, no, make that a great way. This was the first time I'd seen the always charming Teri Hatcher. While I may not be a follower of Desperate Housewives, she herself is always watchable - same goes for Lois & Clark. Not a huge follower, but if I run across an episode I'd watch it. Robert Downey, jr., does a great turn as slimy, smarmy, snaky, sycophantic David Seaton Barnes, the producer who'd give his right eye to see Sally Field's Celeste Talbert leave the show, if only to finally get to get it on with Cathy Moriarty's Montana Moorehead.

Moriarty absolutely shines in this movie, just as she had everywhere else she's appeared. Here, all she has to do is scream ""I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU CREEP!"" or give one of her anti-Celeste-co-conspirators an evil grin, and she has me rolling in the aisles. Yes, Cathy Moriarty is a very gifted actress, and one hell of a comedienne. Sally Field gratefully departs from the usual 70-MM-sized Lifetime Tragedy of the Week movies, and we're all reminded why she is who she is today, having started off in comedy afraid of nothing. Her ensuing years of drama had hidden her sense of humor, but like a caterpillar in a cocoon, the brilliant comedienne she is had blossomed and it was joyous to see her as hilarious as she was. The thing with dramatic actors and actresses is that you see in such heavy, serious roles, that you associate them with their character and you can't believe it when you see them finally having some fun on screen.

How lucky were the producers to land Carrie Fisher, if only for a glorified cameo. She doesn't realize what a presence she bears on screen. She takes a role which, in the hands of a lesser actress, could easily have been forgotten, but she owns the character and it seems as if she wrote it herself.

How lucky was Elisabeth Shue to get thrown in the middle of all this! At the time, she wasn't really known for much. Adventures in Babysitting was kind of cute (yes, I was dragged to an evening show for which I had to pay full price), but she didn't hold my attention - - much. But here, she makes the most of her character - star's niece who falls in love with the star's ex-co-star-and-lover who, of course, turns out to be the niece's father, and the star turns out to be the poor girl's mother.

I'll stop there - I feel I practically wrote a book about this brilliant screwball comedy, or at least a novela. If you've seen it, then reminisce. If you haven't, you've missed a real classic, but not really. The DVD's are made of a material that'll last for at least 25 years, and this movie is timeless, so what the hell.",Positive "I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his ""vision"" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.

I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.

I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout.",Positive "I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...

Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.

Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.

If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes.",Positive "Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet.",Positive "Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.",Negative "Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.",Negative "**1/2 for this Diane Keaton farce.

Someone should tell Ms. Keaton, enough with your Annie Hall philosophy and hats.

This flick is just too much as Keaton's daughter, Sara, dies in a traffic accident, while her boyfriend survives.

Keaton, who could not be reached by phone at first, as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug, grieves in a new way for grievers.

She retreats to the summer locale where all of Sara's friends are staying. She cleans the house, sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. It appears that sweet Sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. In addition, she had an abortion thanks to this guy. We're all now put on this guilt trip.

Her only hope is to find the elusive diary that Sara kept. She also hopes that boyfriend,Adam, who is a playwright, will not include all this in another play.

When the diary is found, it has been written in Japanese. Sara had a Ph.D in this language. It's not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a Japanese cook in a Japanese restaurant.

Naturally, everything seems to tie up nicely in the end.

The title of this shmaltz comes from The Wizard of Oz. Every time mom and Sara would speak, they would both utter Surrender Dorothy.

As if this isn't enough, during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning, Keaton tells Adam not to be another Woody Allen in his film, Interiors, where he tried to successfully emulate Ingmar Bergman. Ms. Keaton also tries drugs with the group. Come on, folks, can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this?

Fair to mediocre best sums up this film.",Negative "In the immediate aftermath following World War II, sound minds in Hollywood tried to distance themselves from the mindless flag-waving that is a natural ingredient in a war effort. ""Best Years of Our Lives' and even 'Gentleman's Agreement' investigated the way Americans looked at themselves in the wake of the war, but Delmer Daves' ""Pride of the Marines"" beat them to it.

The film is about Philadelphia smart alec John Garfield who goes to war as a marine and after a nightmarish evening in a foxhole, with Japanese soldiers eerily crying out at him and his buddies ""Mariiines, tonight you die!"", he is blinded by a hand-grenade, and dumps his girlfriend back home rather than have to depend on her after coming home.

Delmer Daves is uncompromising in his depiction on these men who are brave, as it were, almost by coincidence. They are there, in the foxhole, and when shot at, they react. So much for heroism, but they get the job done. And then comes the self-pity, the dark, gloomy sense of humor. Garfield is in angry denial of his blindness and the film makes no excuses, ""There's no free candy for anyone in this world"", as his buddy tells him. The same guy, a Jew, played by Dane Clark, reminds him, ""In a war somebody gets it, and you're it. Everybody's got problems! When I get back, some guys won't hire me, because my name is Diamond"".

Great movies are made with guts like these, and if the first half hour of 'Pride of the Marines' fails to rise to the occasion completely, from then on it evolves into a true work of art. You weep, and you ponder, you ache and you hope against hope. Well, simply: art.

",Positive "Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.",Negative "Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.

I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.",Negative "I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.

The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.

There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.

If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia",Negative "This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was ""so real"", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!",Negative "It was only when I saw Napoleon Dynamite that I remembered seeing Cracker Bag. Just beautiful sentiment and yet never stooping to being soppy. There is some terrific cinematography and the lead girl is quite brilliant. It captures more than the nostalgia of the time. It has a real heart to it. It is the Achilles wound of childhood that is exquisite and painful. A simple story is always effective when done well. This Glendyn Ivin has a big future and I for one, am looking out for his next project. The follow up is always the most difficut thing. It's like the second album blues for most people.

I just hope his next film is not something lame like a shark film. Cheers to all. Enjoy your cinema.",Positive "Not one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.

This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.

The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.

Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs.",Negative "Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.",Positive "I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, ""Go back home and write better!""",Negative "This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.",Positive "I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD!",Positive "And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, ""The Real"" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since ""Bucket of Blood""), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage.",Positive "These reviews that claim this movie is so bad its good are going way overboard with that one. This movie does not have the guilty pleasure badness that Leonard Part 6, Battlefield Earth and Gigli had. Those movies were entertaining in their awfulness but this pile of dinosaur dung is so bad its painful. I haven't been in this much pain watching a bad movie since I watched Baby Geniuses and Superbabies. Before I start the review let me tell you the story. Theodore Rex is a $35 million dollar bust The New Line Cinema refused to put in theaters. They cut the losses sending it straight to video making it the most expensive straight-to-video movie in decades. Whoopi caved in to be in this disaster after a huge paycheck.

Plot: a millionaire clones dinosaurs so he can launch missiles at the sun which would kill mankind and start another Ice Age. A female cop named Katie Coltrane and an idiotic dinosaur named Theodore Rex reluctantly team up to stop him after the death of a buddy dinosaur.

The plot is given to you in the beginning of the movie which robs the movie of all its mystery. Then you have to deal with the fact that this movie is actually quite awful. Whoopi looks agitated and is trying to wing it with her performance but to no avail. Theodore Rex is flat out annoying and his bumbling behavior wears thin after five minutes on screen. Most of the jokes revolve around him threatening to bite people and hitting people with his tail(on accident and on purpose). I thought Burglar was bad but it takes a backseat to Theodore Rex: the worst movie of Whoopi's career.

Don't let anybody tell you this monstrosity is bad enough to be enjoyable. I didn't see that when I watched this movie. All I saw was a train wreck that was written by people that must have had some sick admiration for movie Howard The Duck. The humor is on that level and Theodore Rex looks like the inbred cousin of Barney. Utterly painful from start to finish.",Negative "I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...",Negative "I couldn't find anyone to watch DiG! with me because no one I knew was a fan of either of the bands. Naturally everyone assumed you can only enjoy this film if you like the music of either The Dandy Warhols or the Brian Jonestown Massacre, but this is so far from the truth. The only requirement is that you have an interest in music and/or pop culture in general. The way in which the careers of the two groups are paralleled is a perfect representation of the paths a band can take, and watching the public eat up and spit out the Dandy Warhols is fascinating. I agree with other reviews that mention it would be nice to get a final word from Anton himself, since he's clearly depicted as his own worst enemy and the bulwark to the band's ability to just remain.

Most interesting to me is the Dandys' respect for the BJM (despite their lack or reciprocation) and for Anton (despite his erratic behavior). The Dandy Warhols respect the art the group produces even if the group hates everything the Dandy Warhols now stand for (although that's disputable). The best line is when the drummer for the Dandy's says ""I won't have them anywhere new me again"" and the guitarist unconsciously blurts out ""I'll still buy their records though."" To me, this just shows how powerful good music can be.

Definitely see this movie, even if you know nothing of either band. It's more about the themes of rock music and how they develop that makes this film so interesting. It's rare to follow a group so closely for so long.",Positive "My goodness is this movie bad. I was totally misled by my local movie review because this is certifiable garbage. Yeah, yeah, good guys wear white, bad guys wear black....and the good guys always win. Now go home and hug your kids, and feel how good Hollywood has made you feel. Blech! I can't believe this brain dead movie was made by Wes Craven. I'm guessing he needed a little money to pay the mortgage, so he made this piece of dung. It is the sort of production that makes anyone who watches movies regularly believe they could do as good or better than such an experienced director.

Ya see, a bad guy wants a sweet girl who loves her daddy to do a wittle IL' bad thing or he's gonna hurt her daddy. But being Ms. All-American girl next door, we know she's gonna save the day and beat the bad guys...the end. Girl power ROCKS.

C'mon now, only an idiot would find this entertaining...""a roller coaster ride,"" let alone something fresh or new. All those ""super-duper"" reviews you see on this site are from industry hacks who are either making money off this flick, paying back a favor, or they have sold their souls to the devil.

Rachael McAdams is beautiful....yup, that's it. Not a good performance, not a horrible one...she's just cute. She would have had to show a whole lot of skin to save this movie. She isn't tough enough to be a good female action lead.

Cillian Murphy was at least passable in 28 Days. But here he plays a dumb villain pretending to be a smart one. He gets his ass kicked to and fro by the 5'5'' McAdams, because after all, she was a cheerleader...and a field hockey player...and I'm sure she owns all the Tae Bo tapes...so she should be able to kick the crap out of an international terrorist for hire. I wouldn't trust him to steal a pack of gum from 7-11.

Ya see, this movie was done before, except before they did it well. Go re-rent any of the Die Hard movies. You have loved ones in danger, international terrorists, except the characters are more likable and believable and the bad guys are WAY more competent and interesting. I simply don't understand how Hollywood can continue to make such crap as if they were oblivious to the proper models they can readily copy. No wonder movie revenues are down.

Throw your $6 down the toilet and save yourself 2 hours of your life you'll never get back.

ciao, FreddyShoop",Negative "I debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.

Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.

I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves ""let's show the other funny stuff."" It didn't work.

For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.

Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.

And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.

Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.

But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.

Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up.",Negative "Finally got to see this classic TV movie on an unofficial disc recorded from an old VHS, it is a classic piece of horror. Its a pity more of this neglected corner of horror in terms of official releases on DVD and VHS ... the TV horror movie. Recommended for all fans of the 70's TV movie much like trilogy of terror. Those interested should get the book on the subject by David Deal - Television Fright Films of the 70's. Email me for a chance to see it.....its fabulous to see it again.

It does have it problems like many TV movies they have to be rather inventive in the effects dept and even at 70 mins it can seem to drag possibly we are all used to more modern editing but still great stuff and far better than many theatrical frights released today.",Positive "When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived ""surprise"" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the ""Making of""-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age ""Citizen Kane."" It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really… The only reason I gave this movie a ""2"" is because I think ""1"" should be reserved for true atrocities, like ""Manos: Hands of Fate"" and ""Space Mutiny."" So ""American Nightmare"" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.",Negative I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.,Positive "What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?

And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?

The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.",Negative "God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind ""Natural born killers"" seems to be a ""clever"" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !",Negative "If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's ""voice"" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.",Positive "Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame ""Jaws""-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. ""Krocodylus"" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the ""specialist"" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.",Negative "I really enjoyed this episode. Seeing The Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Aquaman (even though all he did was swim) made my eyes widen. To see most of the founders of the Justice League trying to bring down Lex Luthor is what i've been waiting for. This sounds a bit off topic, but making a live action Justice League show would definitely make me have a reason to shove everything that i usually do during the week down the drain just to watch one episode. This is the thrill i got from watching this episode. I wish they had made this episode a little longer, like a two hour special, because i felt that one hour of the Justice League wasn't enough. Now before i bore you (unless i already have with my rambling) i just want to say, Smallville is cool again. It sort of lost its touch when the show started focusing on Lana. But i'm sure the writers will just fall back into that loop hole. :( So enjoy this episode. Who knows when another good one's going to come out. Catch it again this Thursday, Feb. 22, if you missed the first airing.",Positive "Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their ""immorality"" at a camp.

Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.

* out of ****.

MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.",Negative "just saw this exquisite 1982 movie Return of the Soldier, based on Rebecca West's novel. Its about a shell-shocked fortyish Captain who doesn't even tell his wife he has returned to British soil, but remains in a hospital in London. He's lost his memory and is a boy again, with a lingering yen for the lower class sweetheart he pursued 25 years earlier. Its a delicate story. He is lingering in his boyhood, while the reader discovers his wife is an unbearable, aspiring socialite who wants him to resume his place in society. Living with them is his cousin Jenny, who loved Chris Baldry the soldier, when they were growing up as playmates, but has settled into spinsterhood. The lower class woman, played by Glenda Jackson, is Margaret Gray. It is SHE who is notified that Chris is back in England. Chris' wife Kitty is shocked when Mrs. Gray comes to tell her that Chris is in a hospital in London. Kitty (Julie Christie) is vacuous and snobbish. Why, she asks herself, was this other woman sent a telegraph about Chris rather than her? Chris has forgotten totally about Kitty. He wants to renew his relationship with Margaret. The now married Margaret is reluctant to meet him, but then does and continues to meet with him. There is a psychiatrist (Ian Holm) who warns Kitty and Jenny that Chris' temporary happiness with Margaret will disappear if he 'cures' him. Jenny realizes how empty Kitty is for Chris and forms a secret loving alliance through Margaret. They both are in love with him. Jenny wants to help. Late in the film Kitty reveals that Chris and she had a boy who died five years ago. Telling Chris this, weighs the Shrink, will certainly restore him to 'normal.' But is this a good idea? Chris, barely aware that he and Kitty were ever married, is unaware of his child and the child's death. The psychiatrist, just learning of the child, believes such knowledge will restore Chris. Jenny and Margaret have Chris all to themselves because Kitty believes he is faking and refuses to accept Chris's illness in reverting to his youth in his forties. The film leaves her mostly out of consideration concerning whats to be done with Chris.

But Jenny and Margaret, in the child's perfectly maintained bedroom- with Kitty too in the novel, but not in the screenplay- discuss what they believe should be done about Chris from their separate perspectives. Margaret is the critical one here, because, though married, she has half fallen in love with Chris again. Jenny's social stature, Jenny believes, will be threatened if Chris does not right himself. She does not reveal this to Margaret, however. Margaret decides, looking ahead, that Chris cannot maintain his fantasy over time, but must return to something like a real life. While Kitty and Jenny look on from the window of the house, Margaret approaches Chris outside and tells him of his lost son. The buoyant war victim's head sinks, his shoulders slump, he looks away. He walks dejectedly toward the house. Fin

I read some criticism of this first novel of Rebecca West. The novel was written something after the first war. The movie is never quite clear who Jenny is, his cousin or his sister. It would be more rousing if she were his sister, of course. The criticism doesn't make it clear either. I'm sure West in her novel, makes sure Jenny is her cousin, not her sister. West is no Henry Miller nor an Anais Nin, whose book Incest (about her relationship with her father as an adult to get even with him for molesting her as a child) I considered reading, but then decided against. Rebecca the author has a need to restore Chris too. She too has outposts in her head for the Society her novel excoriates first but finally embraces once more.",Positive "My God, was this the ""Run, Lola, Run"" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the ""screenwriter"" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.

If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.",Negative "A bloody gangster story which takes place in the years of Great Depression. It tells us about another notorious hit-man, Michael (Mike) Salliwan. Somehow, this time the story turns the other way round: Mike fights to save his life and his only remaining son, because the rest of his family was killed due to dirty game of his own boss. He succeeds in his revenge and secures honorable future to his son, but gets killed in the end. Such stories never have happy end after all.

The role of Mike Salliwan senior was wonderfully played by Tom Hanks, and the part of Mr. Rooney (the Mafia boss) was performed by Paul Newman. The film makes a great impression, and we hear the well-known phrase ""we rob banks"". This film is still worth watching although you could have expected something bigger from Sam Mendes after his American Beauty.",Positive "My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.

I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...

On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..

I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful!",Positive "As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.

Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.

The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame ""finale"" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent.

",Positive "Artemisia Gentileschi, the daughter of Orazio Gentileschi, showed an early promise as a painter. Taught by her father, Artemisia was born in an era that denied talented women the right to have their work seen side by side art created by men. Her tragic life is chronicled in this biographic film directed and co-written by Agnes Merlik.

Having read the novel ""The Passion of Artemisia"" by Susan Vreeland, made us investigate more into the life of this woman, her work, and her legacy. We also read Mary Garrard's ""Artemisia Gentileschi"", which should be a must read book by all art lovers.

""Artemisia"" presents the fictionalized facts we have read about showing the early life of the young woman as she starts to paint. She was clearly influenced by the work of her father, by Caravaggio, Agostino Tassi, and other Florentine painters of that period. Her relationship and love affair with Tassi is the basis of the film. Artemisia, unfortunately couldn't go as far as she could have because of the prejudice against women in the arts. It didn't help either she caused a scandal where she is accused of being raped by Tassi. She had to go to Rome in order to distance herself from that unhappy time of her life.

Valentina Cervi makes a beautiful Artemisia. She is a gorgeous creature who awakened passion in men. Michel Serrault plays Orazio, her father. Miki Maojlovic is seen as Tassi, the man who wanted Artemisia, but ended up in jail. Emmanuelle Devos appears for a moment.

The film has a glossy finish that the camera work of Benoit Delhomme captures in all its splendor. The scenic locales of the film offer an idea of what inspired that school of painting to show in their canvases. The music by Krishna Levy serves well what we see. Agnes Merlik directed with sure hand showing a visual style of her own.",Positive "The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.

When I realized this was supposed to be an ""epic"" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.

Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear ""Che"" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of ""Lawrence"" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.

Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.

He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.

Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.

Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.",Negative "this movie was one of the best disney movies i've ever seen. great for the entire family to watch. the ideas may be a little far-fetched, but it's a feel-good comedy and the acting is great. love the little boy, j.p. and academy award winner adrien brody's part may have been very short, but very memorable. highly recommended.",Positive "The documentary revolves around Eva Mozes Kor, a holocaust survivor, part of Mengele's experiments on twins, consisting primarily her version of what happened at Auschwitz, and a comparison of the emotions of the other survivors of the twin experiments. The movie obviously had great reviews. It's one of those topics that no one dares to voice a contrary opinion about.

I too, for a large part of the movie, got sucked into the emotion that the movie-maker so obviously wanted the viewer to concentrate on. One of the user reviews on IMDb by Eric Monder (obviously having nothing critical to say about the issue on a public forum) could only find the sweetest nectar. ""In one of the many dramatic sequences, as a group of Jews argue with Kor at a Jewish center, the meaning of the word ""forgive"" is even debated, but the isolated and outnumbered Kor holds her own"" But by this time, the sappy hold that the movie had on my dormant emotional repertoire had let loose enough that I could see clearly once more. After the ""strong-willed"" Eva Kor forgives her ""Nazi captors"" the movie begins to delve into what forgiving is all about, at least from the viewpoint of Kor. The movie goes about following her, past her public statement forgiving the Nazis and into new territory. To me, this was the meat of the movie, surrounded by inedible fat of her ""act of forgiveness"". Obviously, it was a very sick cow.

On a mission to test her theory of forgiveness, in order to heal wounds of the past, she makes her way to the ""promised land"" to meet with some Arabs, to discuss with them the issues that they face and to see if dialogue cannot lead to a better understanding of the situation and heavily interspersed with debates and discussions with Jews in the US on her act of forgiving the Nazis, including one at a Jewish center in Chicago. From then on, anyone not so teary eyed that they can't see the screen will find it hard-pressed to miss the obvious contradiction in her statements.

Firstly, you immediately notice her body language, defensive and unwilling to listen in a room full of Arab scholars and teachers. Her comments about how she feared that they might kidnap her shows how much of a waste of time, effort and money the entire act was. A rather annoyed Dr Sami Advan (Professor of education at Bethlehem University) gets it just right when he tells Kor off for a statement she makes about how she would rather be asleep in her apartment.

Finally, the debate at the Jewish center in Chicago, where she is ""grilled"" on the meaning of forgiveness and her right to do so, in the wake of those that continue suffering through the trauma of the acts.

I will cut to the chase. By the end of the movie, I was hoping I hadn't chosen to watch the movie. The movie was badly made, failing to delve deeper into anything about Auschwitz apart from the purely trivial, just sufficient to make sure the holocaust is refreshed in the viewers memory and to incite a barrage of tears. It showed that Kor, the subject of the documentary was unable to engage in fair discussion. Her discussion abilities were limited to parroting her stance on forgiveness (at best) to a complete unwillingness to listen or participate.

Lastly, is everyone so retarded today that they can't notice the difference between making peace and forgiving? Quoting another IMDb user, ""I don't see her forgiveness as being weak- quite the contrary, she just wanted to relieve its hold from her soul, she wanted the suffering to be over, so she let it go."" That would be the perfect layman's definition of MAKING PEACE.

I guess, in a world of propaganda, blind faith and political correctness, there is no room to question those that have ""gone through more than the human mind can fathom"".

P.S. The dictionary certainly should go into all those Books-to-buy lists everyone keeps making.",Negative "I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.

Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only.

By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive!",Negative "this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features",Negative "This was Keaton's first feature and is in actuality three shorts, set in different periods (Stone Age, Roman Age, Modern Age) on the eternal triangle of romance. The stories parallel each other as in Griffith's INTOLERANCE, which this was intended to satirize. The strengths of the jokes and gags almost all rely on anachronisms, bringing modern day business into ancient settings.

**** WARNING - SPOILERS FOLLOW TO ELABORATE BEST POINTS ******

Here are the classic moments:

Using a turtle as a wee-gee board (Stone Age); A wrist watch containing a sun dial (Roman Age); A chariot with a spare wheel (Roman Age); Using a helmet as a tire lock (Roman Age); Early golf with clubs and rocks(Stone Age); Dictating a will being carved into a rock (Stone Age); The changing weather forecaster (Roman Age); The chariot race in snow -Buster using skis and huskies with a spare dog in the chariot's boot(Roman Age).

The above are all throw-away gags that keep us chuckling. There are however unforgettable moments as well:

Buster taking out shaving equipment to match girl putting on make-up; The fantastic double take when an inebriated Buster gazes at his plate to discover a crab staring up at him (within one second he has leaped to stand on his chair from a sitting position and leaped again into the arms of the waiter - one of the funniest moments I've ever seen). And that lion - the manicure -just brilliant.

There's also an off-color bit of racism when four African-American litter bearers abandon their mistress for a Roman crap game.

Kino's print is a bit fuzzy and contains numerous sequences of both nitrate deterioration and film damage- most probably at ends of reels. The Metro feature is scored with piano and flute and borrows heavily from Grieg.

Lots of fun and full of laughs.",Positive "What is most disturbing about this film is not that school killing sprees like the one depicted actually happen, but that the truth is they are carried out by teenagers like Cal and Andre...normal kids with normal families. By using a hand held camera technique a la Blair Witch, Ben Coccio succeeds in bringing us into the lives of two friends who have some issues with high school, although we aren't ever told exactly what is behind those issues. They seem to be typical -a lot of people hate high school, so what? A part of you just doesn't believe they will ever carry out the very well thought out massacre on Zero Day. The surveillance camera scenes in the school during the shooting are made all the more powerful for that reason. You can't believe it's really happening, and that it's really happened. The hand held camera technique also creates the illusion that this is not a scripted movie, a brilliant idea given the subject matter.",Positive "I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.

This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!!

Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).

Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies).",Negative "Yet another ""son who won't grow up"" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than ""Failure To Launch"". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!",Negative "I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.",Negative "A new creative team emerged in 1950 when brilliant actor James Stewart teamed with the equally-brilliant director Anthony Mann to make a series of westerns that helped define that genre for the future. Until that time Stewart was mainly noted for an aw..aw..aw approach to family oriented comedies, dramas, and romances. Not that he wasn't already a multi-talented Hollywood star. One of his best screen performances ever and one of the best for anyone on celluloid was as Macaulay 'Mike' Connor, a sarcastic writer for a scandal rag in ""The Philadelphia Story."" He had even done westerns before. His portrayal of gun shy yet expert shot Thomas Jefferson Destry Jr. in the comedy western ""Destry Rides Again"" helped make that film a classic. But to most movie goers he was the all-American boyscout type Mr. Smith or George Bailey. Seldom was there a dark side to any of the characters he played.

Anthony Mann was associated with B flicks in the film noir mode. ""Raw Deal,"" ""Side Street,"" and ""T-Men"" caught the eye of James Stewart. So the two gifted men combined their resources to produce some of the greatest Hollywood westerns ever made. ""Winchester '73"" and ""The Man from Laramie"" were the best but the others were almost as effective. Mann became a successful director of A films as a result going on to direct what some critics believe to be the greatest western of them all Gary Cooper's ""Man of the West."" Stewart became fabulously wealthy as a result of the partnership because he signed for part of the royalties in return for a fraction of the salary he was usually paid, a wise move indeed followed by many other actors from then on.

Winchester '73 was also one of the first films, maybe the first, to tell a story from the standpoint of a traveling gun. Each owner is part of the tale being told and it all comes together in the exciting showdown at the end of the movie, which also holds a surprise for the viewer. Based on a story by Stuart Lake, the tale centers on revenge and the ownership of the Winchester '73. The year is 1876. Custer and his 7th cavalry have been annihilated by the Sioux and Cheyenne at Little Big Horn. The whites want revenge. The native Americans want their land and their way of life back. This conflict leads to a confrontation between native Americas led by Young Bull (young Rock Hudson showing his potential as an actor) and a small cavalry group pinned down in a canyon and joined by civilians Lin McAdam (Stewart), his partner and life-long pal High Spade ( the underrated actor Millard Mitchell), and a couple trying to find themselves, Steve Miller (Charles Drake) and Lola Manners (Shelley Winters), a soiled dove with a kind heart. Among the horse soldiers are newcomers Tony Curtis and James Best (late of the ""Dukes of Hazzard""), whose part is cut short by a bullet.

Wyatt Earp was in Dodge City in 1876. The movie has him as head marshal. The fine actor Will Geer (later of the Waltons) looks like an older Earp. In reality Wyatt was assistant Marshal in Dodge at the time just cutting his teeth on being a lawman. Lin McAdam wins the Winchester in a shooting contest, but has it taken from him not long afterward by outlaw Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) and his henchmen. McAdam and High Spade are after both Dutch Henry and the Winchester for the remainder of the movie. An even more sinister character emerges along the way, Waco Johnnie Dean, played as evil personified by Dan Duryea who threatens to steal the show from the other members of a stellar cast.

The Winchester passes through several hands during the course of the film, each time the transfer is intense. One involves a gunrunner played to perfection by John McIntire. Other swaps are intermingled with the scenario above. All this plus the action keeps the viewer glued to the seat throughout the entire show.

As noted above, the cast is first rate down to the smallest role. Look for other familiar faces in uncredited parts, including the future sheriff of ""Bonanza"" Ray Teal and B western reliable Panhandle Perkins (Guy Wilkerson).",Positive "Lucky me! I got a sneak peak at this pathetic little shot-in-Texas 'horror' flick from Artisan Entertainment a week before it hit video shelves and let me tell you...I've rarely laughed so hard in my life as I did watching this atrocious megabomb fly off the rails and steal the title of 'worst killer clown movie ever made' from the insufferably stupid Full Moon fiasco KILLJOY (I'm sure many of us horror fans have suffered through that one!) From all indications, it was shot on DV, and it doesn't really 'look' all that bad quality-wise for digital, but boy does it ever fail miserably in every other area where it counts!

The story (slight and cliche as it is) goes as follows... An executive (Ken Hebert, who also scripted and co-produced with the director) takes skeptical co-worker Tracy (Amanda Watson) and horny married couple Mark and Susan (Hank Fields and Chris Buck) along on a weekend getaway to a (yawn) secluded cabin `12 miles' from the nearest town. On the way there, they pick up a bitchy/slutty hitchhiker (Melissa Bale) in a bar and end up at their destination where a nightly campfire tale about a murderous clown stalking the very same wooded area comes true when each of the profanity-yackin, pot-smokin ‘friends' disappears one-by-one, with only mutilated doll parts left behind to tell the tale of their fates.

The killer clown doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and it looks nothing like the demonic depiction of it on the video box (aside from being morbidly obese). It basically spends an hour prancing around in the woods, chopping up wood and blabbing nursery rhymes. I cannot say enough bad things about the cast, especially the two guys and the hitchhiker chick, who either deliver their insipid dialogue with a bare minimum of enthusiasm or overact at the most inappropriate times. Doesn't really help that the script is completely and utterly devoid of suspense, originality, intelligence, general coherence or humor. I could go on for days on how inept this film is, how many continuity errors there are and how amateurish the whole production is, but I'll just nod off by pointing out the whole package is quite a riot in that Boy-This-Sucks kind of way.

Also noting that the film has been released here in the US as S.I.C.K. (SERIAL INSANE CLOWN KILLER). It's currently catalogued under its (original title) of GRIM WEEKEND.

Score: 1 out of 10",Negative "No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.)

This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British ""humor"" included black ""jokes"" like these, thirty years ago.

What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences.

The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other ""low"" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :(",Negative "In all honesty, if someone told me the director of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, City of Angels, and Caspers was going to do a neat little low budget indie film and that'd it be real good, I'd say that person must be joking. But that's what director Brad Siberling did. And it was really good.

""10 Items or Less"" has a similar conceit to films like ""Before Sunrise,"" ""Lost in Translation,"" or more recently ""Once."" It involves the chance meeting of two people who if serendipity didn't put them there, they'd probably never cross paths, or if they did, they wouldn't say word one to each other. Like those films, ""10 Items or Less"" focuses on the relationship that builds and how the characters come to understand each other and build on each other's strengths and weaknesses.

The story involves Morgan Freeman, playing an unnamed actor who goes to research his role as a grocery store employee for an upcoming independent movie and because of things beyond his control, ends up spending the day with the lady in the 10 items or less lane played by Paz Vega. She has a rotten marriage and is hoping to land a new job as a secretary. Initially, Freeman's character just needs a lift home. After spending time with her, however, he wants to get to know her and maybe even offer her some advice.

Brad Siberling builds the characters almost entirely through the exchanges between Freeman and Vega. The plot is merely a setup for these two characters to interact with each other for most of the film's 80 minute duration. Freeman has fun with his character, as he appears an outsider in lower class world that Vega's character, Scarlett, inhabits. Vega, in the meantime, grows beyond the stubborn checkout clerk upset with her life's situation looking to move on.

There a couple things that really stood out in this film. First of all, Siberling has probably taken note from independent cinema to make sure the relationship is sincere and doesn't fall into any Hollywood pitfalls. It's a very mutual friendship that develops convincingly throughout the film. It works, even though the situation itself does seem a little inconceivable.

I am also impressed with the performances. While Freeman's presence gives this film credibility from the get-go, he shows a certain amount of charm and fun not usually seen from him. Paz Vega, meanwhile, is priming herself for a breakthrough in US film sometime in the future. I loved her in Spanglish and she's equally good here as the tough, no-nonsense Scarlet. Towards the end of the film, she successfully conveys the growth of her character. I'm looking forward to seeing her in more films.

Overall, 10 Items of Less functions best as a character piece, well scripted and directed by Brad Siberling. He hasn't done much writing and his feature film work has consisted mostly of big Hollywood films. Yet there's certainly an artist at work here and am anxious to see if he'll take this road again.",Positive "You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.",Negative Iam a Big fan of Mr Ram Gopal Varma but i could not believe that he made this movie. i was really disappointed.

Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag doesn't come anywhere close to the real Sholay. It does not leave a lasting impression on a viewer. Ram Gopal Varma fails to create chemistry between the characters . There is no camaraderie between Heero(Ajay Devgan) and Raj(Prashant raj). There are hardly any scenes with more than two people in the frame together. The sequence outside the courtroom with Amitabh Bachchan and Mohanlal face off is remarkable. Amitabh Bachchan should not have done this movie. Ajay and Sushmita sen was trying their best but no use. Rajpal Yadav's voice modulation - ineffective and rather pointless. Mohanlal did full justice and proved it again that acting is all about facial expression and body language. Rest of the cast was below expectation. The comedy situation which was adapted from the original sholay fall flat in this movie.

Ram Gopal Varma could have worked upon the script but because of the controversies surrounded against the movie he messed up and just for the sake of making he made this Aag. But there is no fire.,Negative "Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed ""Phone Booth"",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),""Intermission"",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),""Blue Crush"",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),""All The Real Girls"",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view.",Positive "First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.",Positive "This is, in my opinion, a very good film, especially for Michael Jackson lovers. It contains a message on drugs, stunning special effects, and an awesome music video.

The main film is centered around the song and music video 'Smooth Criminal.' Unlike the four-minute music video, it is normal speed and, in my opinion, much easier to watch.

The plot is rather weird, however. Michael Jackson plays a magical 'gangster' that, when he sees a shooting star, he transforms into a piece of machinery. Throughout the film, he transforms into a race car, a giant robot, and a space ship.

The robot scene in particular is a bit drawn out and strange. I found it a little out-of-whack compared to the rest of the film.

A child is kidnapped, Michael tries to save her, is tortured and beaten, and suddenly turns into a giant robot that blows up all the bad guys. A little weird? Yeah.

But besides the bizarre robot scene, it's a very good movie, and any Michael Jackson fan will enjoy both the Smooth Criminal music video and the movie.",Positive "Deathtrap gives you a twist at every turn, every single turn, in fact its biggest problem is that there are so many twists that you never really get oriented in the film, and it often doesn't make any sense, although they do usually catch you by surprise. The story is very good, except for the fact that it has so many twists. The screenplay is very good with great dialogue and characters, but you can't catch all the development because of the twists. The performances particularly by Caine are amazing. The direction is very good, Sidney Lumet can direct. The visual effects are fair, but than again most are actually in a play and are fake. Twists way to much, but still works and is worth watching.",Positive "Hard to imagine this film is based on a true story, and how Christy managed to accomplish the miracle is so heart-stirring. Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon, really hard to imagine how much effort he had done to create this disabled character. Watching him on screen is a shocking and breathtaking experience.

The movie is not so pessimistic as I thought before, the story is kinda bright and intriguing. Christy is not despised by the normals, his life is also colorful and delightful, although we can be aware of the loneliness and the painful fetter through his eyes.

One important factor of Christy's success is his mother's support which seems to be more touching, and the unknown actress Brenda Fricker also deserves her Oscar award for this role, this fat little middle-aged woman uses her all to make Christy's dream come true. So lucky for Christy!And Hugh O'Conor is also excellent as young Christy, what a performance for a child! The love story of Christy is very well-done, trustful. Christy wants love and nothing can derive him of the right to love, his crush on the beautiful Dr. Eileen Cole (surprisingly played by Fiona Shaw, I am deeply impressed with her role in Harry Potter series, the loathsome Aunt Petunia, so her appearance in this role is really beyond my mind, but anyway, any woman has her own youth...) is paranoiac and offensive, I do have sympathy for him, love is a two-edged sword, happiness and agony are just next to each other.

Btw, Jim Sheridan's works are all good (IN America, THE BOXER etc.) except GET RICH OR DIE Trying', god knows why he chose to direct that crap! Really a career taint for him, what a pity!",Positive "I am currently doing film studies at A.S level and ""this is not a love song"" is a film we watched and in my opinion it is a film with a very simple storyline but a complex back-story. If you scratch the surface you will find a thriller-chase film of two men running through the countryside from farmers, after committing a murder:-""sounds quite exiting"".

However you need to dig deeper to uncover the true feeling of the true genre. As it is suggested, it is a love story between two homosexual lovers, filled with trust, deceit and betrayal. We are not told about this ""love"" directly through the film but the events that happen through out, for example the way Heaton acts towards Spike almost screams this untouched love affair in our faces.

Overall this film is a good example of why British films should not be dismissed as ""rubbish"" just because they are done on a low budget.

A Good film with an intricate story line, however it is definitely an acquired taste and is possibly not suitable for the average fan of Hollywood blockbusters.",Positive "I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages.",Positive "This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in ""Follow That Dream.""",Negative "I was 16 when I first saw the movie, and it has always been a HUGE favorite of mine. Of course, you can't deny the appeal of Kristofferson in the movie - HOW FINE IS THAT MAN???????????? Sheesh. He still is. He's the bad boy every woman secretly wants. His acting is flawless. He played a drunk/druggie only the way someone who really had gone through it could - and he had - in '76 he finally got on the wagon, so it was all very real.

The music is GREAT and even though in later years I thought Streisand was somewhat not the right person for him in a physical beauty sense, I think it's more a problem for male viewers than female. Us gals are just looking at Kris - and naturally the guys are looking at the female interest - my husband cannot watch the movie b/c of her - he doesn't like her looks. But I did make him sit through just the red Ferrari scene on the road towards the end just so he could see how well done it was - the camera work was so perfect and you were totally in the car with him with the music blasting - you should have seen it on my 50"" plasma - WOW!!!! And lastly, the transfer quality was GREAT - anamorphic widescreen and really clear with great color and very low noise except for dark areas which is normal for all film.

Brought back some great memories of my mom and I loving this movie together, I bought a copy for her for Christmas. Would have loved to watch it together with her last night.

I have tried to sit through the original with Judy Garland, but I guess seeing this one first, I just can't get into the earlier era. Watching all the concert footage in the '76 version was so much like what I was living at the time.

I am working my way through the commentary by Streisand, but she seems to only talk about herself and the songs, so far she has barely even mentioned Kris or details about scenes in the movie. Her voice sounds EXACTLY the same now as then.

Check it out, if you grew up in the same era as me (born in 1960) you will love it.

Wendy",Positive "RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.

10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.

9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.

8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.

7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.

6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.

5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).

4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.

3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.

2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.

1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.

Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.",Negative "I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).

I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.",Negative "I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.

After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.

Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.

Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.

Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.

Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.

We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.

The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww!

The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.

What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.

Sorry Jane.",Negative "I saw this when I was 17 and haven't seen it since. The 'CBS Late Movie' used to show it on a regular basis at one point. I remember how sad and upsetting it was, it truly made me sick to my stomach. Effects then weren't what they are today, but nevertheless, it conveyed the feeling of being alone in the Amazon, after losing both parents and searching for a way out, very well. I remember the bugs and maggots the most, so realistic they were, eating her flesh. It's a dark film which was controversial subject matter at the time, even though likely it was strongly edited for TV. I wish I remembered more details, and if I ever get the chance to see it again, I can comment more. I have been looking for this for years. I believe it may have been shown on CBS under yet another title. I have no idea whether it was ever released on video.",Positive ".......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.

He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.

Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.

Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.",Positive """The Bat People"" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, ""The Bat People"" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects – although courtesy of a young Stan Winston – are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as ""people"" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, ""The Bat People"" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without ""The Bat People"".",Negative """The Invisible Ray"" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.

Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.

Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names ""Radium X"". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.

Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.

While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.

But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........

Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.

At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way.",Positive "Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....",Positive "That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.

This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.

Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it.",Negative "This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.",Negative "Another Priyadarshan/Vohra flick another movie that was seen for TP rather than actual desire, the only reason i did see this movie was the fact that the regulars were not there in this movie (Akshay Paresh and many others), but needless to say i had low expectations from this movie.

I was happy with the casting in general except, Rajpal Yadav who once again annoys to no limit, he does however extract some laughs, but these were those standard slapstick non-original jokes, in fact this whole movie is like playing the dhol, I mean it takes hardly any talent to make loud noise, or even play the odd good beat on the dhol for a small time does it?? Its only those who can carry different beats in a nice sequential manner, for an extended period who are considered great.

Which brings us to the other instrument, the Dumroo hardly requires any talent, it has no variations, and it may be enjoyable for a while the monkey dances (hmm sounds like Rajpal Yadav, good analogy), but its not a instrument that will entertain you for long or even get you dancing like the Dhol does.

This movie was like the dhol and the dumroo being played, sometimes the Dhol was played sometimes the dumroo, sometimes both together, but mostly the Dumroo played alone and the monkey danced. And like any 24 year old sooner than later I got bored.

The movie has some good Dhol (good) moments but after a while all i heard was the annoying Dumroo (entertaining initially, then tolerable then irritating), the large ordinary parts really ensure this movie is mainly good for a few funny clips on ""MERE BHAINS KO ANDA KYUN MARA"" (if you haven't watched it watch it on Filmy, it comes in the evenings and is really quite funny).

This movie had its moments, the actors did a fine job, except Rajpal Yadav (who can act though, I've seen him in Main Meri Patni…) who annoys more than entertains, I've said it many time and I'll say it again I really think Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have a fine career ahead of them in the multi-star comedies especially.

Some scenes were really funny such as the aborted attempts to impress the girls father, the zany attempts to woo the girl and take her away from each other.

But after this was over there was a failed attempt to make this movie into much more with a mystery added, this mean that once the girl was in, the following 45-60 mins was increasingly torturous, the climax was ""SO BAD ITS ALMOST GOOD CATEGORY"", I mean what were they thinking if you had to have tense ending at least make some attempt to make it palatable.

The movie is also extremely predictable, there's hardly a scene you cant predict and you wont be breaking into spontaneous burst of laughter here, its more like you see it coming and almost start laughing before the gag.

The movie follows a gradual decline throughout the movies except for the odd bump, down or up, and then rapidly tumbles downhill once they have made friends with the girl.

Most of the really bad scenes were towards the end, one the movie tries to be more than a run of the mill comedy, also many of the jokes were very very stale and reeked of repetition, THE LAST 10-15 WAS ESPECIALLY DISTATEFULL AND COMPLETELY SPOILS THIS MOVIE.

I didn't find Tanushree Datta quite the siren she was to play, and her acting talent is in serious question, especially in view of her non-appealing looks, if you cant be a HOT and cant act how much time can you survive.

Technically also this movie was weak, with the constant female gaze and shoddy lighting and camera-work.

The songs except the title track were no good either, when the songs played in the 2nd half I could feel the collective gasp from the audience.

In all a movie that's just ordinary merely because of the cast, and the very low expectations.

Avoiding it wont be a bad idea.

And if it has to be watched watching it on TV for free or a very cheap matinée or something is a must, if you pay full multiplex rates you will feel disappointed.

-s lots of stale jokes, RAJPAL YADAV, LAST 45 MINS AND LAST 15 MINS ESPECIALLY, bad technically, bad songs.

+/-s tries to be more than what it was, not the regular cast (I'm happier for it), Tanushree Datta.

+s some good scenes towards the beginning,title song, good acting and cast except RY.

total 4.5/10 (I'm trying to be objective here, i don't like Rajpal Yadav or Tanushree Datta and this movie did meet my very low expectations, so I'm giving it the benefit of all doubts, on absolute terms this movie was not more than a 4)",Negative "I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America.",Positive "I'll say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.

Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.

Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one ""hep"" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.

One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.

Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad.",Negative "James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil')",Negative "I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.

BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.

THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The ""seed"" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.

I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.

What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie ""forbidden knowledge"" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.

I learned in graduate school that ""knowledge is power"" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is ""potential"" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]

The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.

Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....

Rating: 10 out 10 stars",Positive "I began watching this movie with my girl-friend. And after 5 minutes I was alone.

I succeed to stay until the end. It has been a painful experience.

I liked jean hugues anglade, but I think that he needed to eat, as us, and thus he accepted to play in this movie.

There are only 5 characters, and the rest could be called 'art' or something that I couldn't express, but that I didn't understand at all.

The only worst movie I saw was crash, but I'm pretty sure now that I have enough experience to watch it successfully again.

good luck!! ;o)",Negative "National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no ""Indiana Jones"". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.

I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.

National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from ""The Da Vinci Code"". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.

The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the ""bad guys"" and experiencing what is supposed to be ""non-stop action"" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother!

Reminded me of that episode of the ""Brady Bunch"" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film!

The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered ""priceless"" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!!

Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be ""tough"" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity!

The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in ""National Treasure"" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.

National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.

Rent it if you must see it first.......",Negative "I caught this movie on my local movie channel, and i rather enjoyed watching the film. It has all the elements of a good teen film, and more - this film, aside from dealing with boys-girls relationships and sex and the like, also deals with the issue of steroid use by young people.

The film has that real-life feel to it - no loud music, no special effects and no outrageous scenes - which, for this movie, was right. That feel makes it easy to relate to the characters in the film - some of which we probably know from where we live.

Overall, a good movie, fun to watch.

8/10",Positive Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left…. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.

Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry …. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.,Negative "After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.

The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.

Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.

The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.

The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.

This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.

I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.

My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams ""DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!"" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?)

The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was ""you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..."" yet they left that line out in the movie.

There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: ""HOME"" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?)

No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said ""this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again."" Perfect description of this movie.

I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.

For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.

1/10",Negative "what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of ""quirky, irreverent"" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.

2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.

3. the post-modern ""i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself"" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.

4. smarmy, smug drollness.

5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.

but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: ""Interiors""??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.",Negative "I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question ""How did we get here?"" at least a half dozen times during the movie.

There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.

This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it!",Negative "This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.",Negative "Must every good story be ""improved"" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.

The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).

My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.",Negative "This is the version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior.",Negative "I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.",Positive "That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know.",Positive "One of those classics, held up next to ""Deep Throat"" and ""Behind the Green Door.""

Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.

Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.",Negative "This is just the best movie of all times! Sorry, Hollywood! I've seen it in early 70's, as soon as it appeared on the Bulgarian TV, and I loved it immediately (I was 14 then). 25 years later I bought it on a video tape, and a few months ago it finally appeared on a DVD here in Bulgaria. I live with this movie 35 years already, and so do all my friends and my family. My son was a teenager when he saw it for the first time, and he loved it immediately, too (and this is the generation that grew up watching practically only Hollywood movies and not speaking or understanding Russian at all!). What makes this masterpiece of Danelia so special? It's difficult to say, as it is difficult to describe what the beauty is... But the fact is that you can watch this movie dozens of times with the same pleasure as it was the first time. I can't remember any other such movie, no matter how many millions it cost or how great the cast was... Chapeau, Maestro Danelia! Bulgaria loves you!",Positive "The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.

One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV...",Negative "Boy oh boy oh golly gee,

The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's ""invisibility."" They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...

I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted ""steadicam"" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, ""Invisible Mom."" If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.",Negative "Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.

Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see.

However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.",Negative "I just finished ""Dark Chamber"" aka ""Under Surveillance"" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.

Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.

One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future.

The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow ""performances"" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).

I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised ""Dark Chamber"" here are in some way affiliated with its production.",Negative "I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.

The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.

Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.",Negative "There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.",Positive "I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young ""actor"" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet?",Negative "This is the best film version of Dicken's classic tale. I've seen it over and over on VHS, and recently acquired the DVD version, which is formatted for TV (not wide-screen). What I find interesting about this teleplay is the cast of English actors who are now recognizable since many have appeared in other films/shows in North America since 1984. My biggest surprise is Edward Woodward, ""the Equalizer"", as the Ghost of Christmas Present.",Positive "Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. ""Watch on the Rhine"" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

""Watch on the Rhine"" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.",Positive "Gerard is a writer with a somewhat overactive imagination. He is also homosexual and Catholic prone to Catholic guilt and something of a clairvoyant, or so it seems. On a trip to Flushing he is 'seduced' by Christine. When he discovers that Christine's new boyfriend is the bit of rough trade he's been fancying from afar he decides to stick around. After all, enforced heterosexuality has its compensations. Then he realizes that Christine's previous three husbands have all died violent deaths. Did Christine murder them and is he or the boyfriend, Herman, going to be 'the fourth man'? Verhoeven's overheated, over-egged melodrama is a delicious blend of Hitchcock and David Lynch, full of OTT eroticism and religious imagery and an awful lot of the colour red. A lot of the time it looks and feels like a dream and we can never be sure that what we are seeing is real or a figment of Gerard's imagination. The fun is in figuring it out. Also the fact that Christine is an infinitely more likable character that either the priggish Gerard or the bullish Herman means we are hardly like to root for either of the men over her. In fact, it's fair to say Gerard's comeuppance can't come soon enough. Super performances, too, from Jeroen Krabbe and Renee Soutendijk and easily Verhoeven's best film up to his wonderfully subversive piece of sci-fi ""Starship Troopers"".",Positive "Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.

The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.

Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.

Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.",Negative "Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****",Negative "This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10",Positive "**SPOILERS** Since the disappearance at sea of her favorite niece Phyllis murder mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, Ruth Gordon, has strong suspicions that it was Phyllis' husband Edmund Galvin, Charles Frank, who was responsible for her death. In fact Abigail is convinced that he murdered her and made it look like a tragic accident.

Knowing that there's no evidence to have Edmund arrested for Phyillis' death and deciding to take the law into her own hands Abigail cooks up this elaborate plan to do him in and make it look, like Phyllis' death, a tragic accident. Getting Edmund to secretly come over to her mansion to give him the combination to her walk-in safe, as she's about to leave on vacation for New York City, Abigail tricks him into going inside locking the startled and surprised Edmund in. With the safe being soundproof nobody at the mansion the butler maid and Abigail's personal secretary Veronica, Mariette Hartley, hear him screaming for help and the next day Edmund is found suffocated to death. Veronica discovered Edmund's body as she was about to put away, for safe keeping, Abigail's latest murder mystery manuscript.

Lt. Columbo, Peter Falk, is called on the case involving the strange death of Edmund Garvin to determine if it's a murder or a tragic accident. Going through Edmund's apartment Columbo is puzzled to find out that he doesn't have a single photo of his late wife, who's been missing for just a month! This ties into what Abigail always felt about him in Edmund not being in love with Phyllis and also a suspect in her, in Abigail's mind, murder.

Columbo a big fan, together with his wife, of Abigail's murder mystery novels has a hard time realizing that she in fact was responsible for Edmund's death. All the evidence points to Abigil including a pair of missing car keys that was Edmunds. This all proved that Abgail was in fact in the house, not on her way to the airport, when Edmund was locked inside the walk-in safe.

Going through all the evidence Columbo comes up with this strange conclusion that Edmund must have left some evidence inside the safe in writing to who his killer is. That conclusion is quickly checkmated when it's found out that Edmund didn't even have a pen or pencil as well as light, with the safe light-bulb burned out, on him to write it. There's also something very odd that's inside the safe that has been on Lt. Columbo's mind ever since he came on the case. This has to do with the black paint residue that was found under the dead Edmund's fingernails and on his belt buckle!

It's that evidence, when put together with a number of other items in the safe, that in the end hangs Edmund's murder on the tricky and very cunning mystery writer Abigail Mitchell. Edmund let Abigail unknowingly convict herself in his final attempt as the air in the safe was being used up, by his breathing, in using burnt out matchsticks to write on Abigail last manuscript who murdered him: Abigail Mitchell!",Positive "I really love this movie. I remember one time when I was in 2nd >grade, my teacher showed it to us on a 16mm film reel. This movie, however, can be a little frightening for 2nd graders such as the scene where Bill murders Nancy and seeing Fagin's face for the first time on the screen. One of my relatives is sick of seeing this movie because she studied over it in music class. If I were a teacher and could grade the people who produced this wonderful film, I would give them an A+.",Positive "Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but ""Follow the Fleet""'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play ""Bake"" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.

But at the same time, ""Follow the Fleet"" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with ""We Saw the Sea"" and ""I'd Rather Lead a Band."" He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy ""Let Yourself Go"" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune.

The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of ""Let Yourself Go"". Later, they sing and dance ""I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket"" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, ""Let's Face the Music and Dance"", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.

It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of ""Follow the Fleet"" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over.",Positive "She's not Michael Jordan

Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.

I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.

I still remember that for some time after I saw ""The Devil's Advocate"" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in ""2 Days in the Valley"" and ""Mighty Joe Young"" and Gretchen Mol was in ""Donnie Brasco"", ""Celebrity"", and ""Rounders"".

By the time I had seen ""The Thirteenth Floor"" (Mol) and ""Sweet November"" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.

Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.

In 2003 ""Monster"" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the ""Best Actress"" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!

Then in 2005 ""The Notorious Bettie Page"" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a ""B"" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating.",Positive "Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10.",Positive "The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.",Negative "I was prepared for a turgid talky soap opera cum travelogue, but was pleased to find a fast-paced script, an underlying moral, excellent portrayals from all the actors, especially Peter Finch, amazing special effects, suspense, and beautiful cinematography--there's even a shot of the majestic stone Buddhas recently destroyed by the Taliban. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor at her most gloriously beautiful and sympathetic, before she gave in to the gaspy hysterics that marred her later work. All the supporting players round it out, and I do wonder who trained all those elephants.

Speaking of the stone-Buddha sequence, you really can discern that it's Vivien Leigh in the long shots. Her shape and the way she moves is distinct from Taylor's. The only thing marring that sequence are the poorly done process shots, where the background moves by much too fast for horses at a walk.

If you want a thought-provoking film that is beautiful to watch and never boring, spend a few hours with Elephant Walk.",Positive "One woman, by herself in a house for 45-minutes of screen time, doesn't sound like a formula to hold you on the edge-of-your-seat... but FUTURE SHOCK is truly as thrilling as they come! Writer / star Vivian Schilling takes on those little fears we all suppress, and enlarges them to terrifying proportions, so don't watch this film alone!",Positive "I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.

I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.

Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.

Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.

This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.

Avoid.",Negative "If you cannot enjoy a chick flick, stop right now. If, however, you enjoy films that illustrate complex characters and provide extraordinary acting, read on.

Ann Grant Lord is dying. Her two daughters arrive to be at her bedside. Ann begins talking about people from her past of whom the daughters are unaware, and they question as to whether these lost acquaintances are real or imagined. They come to realize that these people from their mother's past are, indeed, real.

The story shifts, basically, between 1953 and circa 2000 with a few glimpses at Ann's life between those years. It was in 1953 that Ann met the love of her life and experienced her life's greatest tragedy.

One of Ann's two best friends from college, Lila, is being married. Ann's other best friend is Lila's brother, Buddy. Lila and Buddy are the children of a rich Newport family, whereas Ann is a cabaret singer living in Greenwich Village who wants to be a free spirit but is still bound by many of those 1950's conventions.

Soon after Ann arrives to be maid of honor at Lila's wedding, she meets the person who will become the pivotal character in the lives of the three - Harris. He is the adult son of a former servant of the family who grew up with Lila and Buddy and has gone on to become a physician in a small New England town. Ann immediately becomes enamored of Harris which adds a complication to the fact that Lila has always been in love with Harris and continues to be. Buddy, also, is in love with Harris, but being 1953, he has redirected that homosexual desire for Harris to his good friend, Ann for he cannot admit to himself that he has a sexual craving for another man. Buddy exhibits his inner frustration outwardly by being the alcoholic, wise-cracking bad boy of the family - much to the chagrin of his very proper and uptight parents.

Needless to say, all of these expressed and repressed emotions lead to tragedy - after all this is a chick flick.

In the present time, Ann's daughters have become distant from their mother and are suffering their own life realizations and doubts. Constance is working to emotional exhaustion trying to keep up her roll as perfect mother and wife. Nina, having always felt inferior, cannot maintain a relationship.

Stir all of these relationships into a span of fifty years, and you get an intriguing look at society, its values, and its effects upon the personalities and actions of the complex people involved.

All of the acting in Evening is excellent, but there are some extraordinary performances and scenes - along with two unique family relationships - that make this film so very, very special.

Claire Danes plays the 1950's Ann, and she does it in a style that clearly shows an intelligent woman of those times who is conflicted by what she is supposed to do as opposed to what she wants to do. Her performance is not easily forgettable.

Vanessa Redgrave plays the dying Ann whose mind shifts from the present, to the past, to flights of fantasy, and of course, Redgrave pulls it all off with sterling style.

Natasha Richardson - Redgrave's real daughter - plays Ann's daughter, Constance, in the film. The scenes between this real life mother and daughter playing fictional mother and daughter are an insightful treat to watch.

Toni Collette plays Ann's other daughter, Nina. Nina spends a good deal of her time being depressed and feeling sorry for herself while shutting out a good man who loves her as well as her mother and sister. Collette is perfect for a part such as this, but I have never seen her give a bad or unbelievable performance no matter what part she plays.

Mamie Gummer plays 1950's Lila and shows us a woman even more conflicted of her expected role in life than her good friend, Ann. She is very good.

Meryl Streep - Gummer's mother - plays present day Lila. What is there to say about Meryl Streep other than she always gives an insightful and rewarding performance.

Director Lajos Koltai states in the DVD extras that he sought out Glenn Close to play the relatively small part of Lila's mother because he felt she was the only actress he could think of to play one scene in the film. He certainly was right, and Close's performance in that one scene etches it in your mind. All the other scenes in which Close is Lila's very proper mother, and you get another performance to treasure.

There are three other scenes in the film, combined with the one featuring Close described above, that make the whole movie worth watching. On Lila's wedding day, Ann comes into her room and crawls into to bed with her friend to discuss Lila's misforgivings about her upcoming wedding to a man she clearly does not love. This scene is repeated fifty years later when Lila comes and crawls into bed with her dying friend Ann to talk about the lives they have lived. In this latter scene, Streep and Redgrave are enthralling.

The other memorable scene - at least to me - is when Buddy declares his love for Ann. Hugh Dancy as Buddy gives us a heartbreaking performance of a young man torn apart by his conflicting sexual feelings. His performance is superior.

Chick flick? Yes. A very special film with unbelievable acting, directing, and scenery? Definitely. I cannot recommend Evening too much.",Positive "Creep - ""Your journey terminates here."" Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.

No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.

This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.

Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.

It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid ""hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond"" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.

""Your journey terminates here"" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.",Negative "I have had the pleasure of reading Martin Torgoff's book ""Can't Find My Way Home"" which is chock full of info on the drug culture of America, spanning the years 1945-2000. This guy knows his stuff!! I found him to be an excellent spokesperson for this documentary. I particularly enjoyed watching the film clips from the hippie era, and the 70's stoner culture. The soundtrack was excellent. Whoever compiled it definitely was in touch with the tunes of each era. Hopefully they will package them and sell them as a CD set. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in how the 1960's experiments with LSD forever changed American culture as we know it. One thing that was missing was any mention of George Jung (played by Johnny Depp in the movie ""Blow""), who was supposedly responsible for much of the marijuana and cocaine coming into this country in the 60's-80's.",Positive "First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.",Negative "I wasn't as ""lucky"" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... ""fecund"" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as ""Horror of Dracula"" and (my personal favourite) ""Brides of Dracula"".

The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.

Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it!",Negative "This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film.",Positive "Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy had extensive (separate) film careers before they were eventually teamed. For many of Ollie's pre-Stan films, he was billed on screen as Babe Hardy ... and throughout his adult life, Hardy was known to his friends as 'Babe'. While touring postwar Britain with Laurel in a music-hall act for Bernard Delfont, Hardy gave an interview to journalist John McCabe in which he explained the origin of this nickname: early in his acting career, Hardy got a shave from a gay hairdresser who squeezed Hardy's plump cheeks (the ones on his face) and said 'Nice baby!' Hardy's workmates started crying him 'Babe', and the nickname stuck.

Although much of Hardy's pre-Laurel work is very interesting -- notably his comedy roles in support of Larry Semon and the Chaplin imitator Billy West -- his teamwork with Billy Ruge (who?) in a series of low-budget shorts for the Vim Comedy Film Company is very dire indeed. Hardy and Ruge were given the screen names Plump and Runt: names which are unpleasant in their own right, but made worse because Ruge (although shorter than Hardy) isn't especially a runt. Seen here, Hardy looks much as he does in his early Hal Roach films with Laurel ... but without the spit curls and the fastidious little moustache.

'One Too Many', an absolutely typical Plunt and Runt epic, is direly unfunny ... and its dreichness is made even more conspicuous by the fact that this film has exactly the same premise as 'That's My Wife', one of Laurel and Hardy's most hilarious films. Plump (Hardy) is the star boarder in a rooming-house run by a tall gawky landlady. Runt (Ruge) is the porter. Plump receives a letter from his wealthy uncle John, whose dosh he expects to inherit. His uncle is coming to see him and to meet Plump's wife and baby. There's only one problem: Plump hasn't got a wife and baby. He's been lying to his uncle in order to seem a family man. Now, of course, Plump expects Runt to find him a wife and baby on short notice. Of course, the results are disastrous. It would be nice if those disastrous results were funny, but they aren't. Most of the unfunny humour here is just empty slapstick, with characters settling their arguments by shoving each other into bathtubs.

SPOILERS COMING. Vim director Will Louis (who?) shows no instinct for camera framing: the actress who plays the landlady is significantly taller than Hardy, and Louis consistently sets up his shots so that her head is out of frame. This could be funny if done on purpose, but it's merely inept. At one point in this bad comedy, an extremely tasteless gag is looming on the horizon as Runt approaches a black laundress. 'Surely they wouldn't stoop THAT low for a laugh,' I thought. But they do. Runt steals the woman's black infant and tries to fob this off as Plump's progeny.

Somehow, Plump acquires an infant's cot, but he still hasn't got a baby. With Uncle John coming up the stairs, Plump conscripts Runt for babyhood. This gag might just possibly have worked with a midget, or even with a truly runt-sized actor such as Chester Conklin, but Billy Ruge is only slightly below average height. Ruge's impersonation of a baby is neither believable nor funny, and Uncle John would have to be a complete moron to fall for it. Amazingly, he does!

The most notable aspect of 'One Too Many' is a brief appearance -- apparently her only-ever film appearance -- by Madelyn Saloshin, Oliver Hardy's first wife. The marriage was not a happy one, although Hardy's marital troubles never attained the epic proportions of Stan Laurel's.

Only one thing in this movie impressed me. There is a very brief flashback sequence, with Hardy reminiscing about his seaside romance with a bathing beauty. In 1916, there was still not yet a standard film grammar for conveying flashbacks: the one shown here is done gracefully and simply. Too bad this movie has no other merits. 'One Too Many' is definitely one film too many on Oliver Hardy's CV, and I'll rate this movie just one point out of 10. Laurel and Hardy together are definitely much funnier than either of them separately.",Negative "Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.

No film epitomized this more than ""Stroker Ace"" which makes ""Cannonball Run"" look like a classic and ""Cannonball Run II"" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.

If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.",Negative "The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there).

It was labeled by many critics to have been a ""great parody,"" or ""unintentional comedy."" Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.

With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots.

Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.

Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be.

This version rates a 9.8/10 on the ""TV"" scale from...

the Fiend :.",Positive "This movie is excellent. I found it very interesting. I thought the Wendigo legend was pretty cool. The acting was also great, as well as the costumes, production, photography, directing and script.

A very happy family, on vacation gets stranded in the middle of nowhere after they hit a deer. A huntsman then appears and is very angry and outraged over the fact that one of the deer's antler's is broken. He then starts to stalk the family and weird things start to happen to them.

See this movie. It's worth it. Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two Thumbs Way Up!",Positive "A heartwarming film. The usual superb acting by John Thaw, who passed over recently. A man who was always so unassuming. He was one of Englands top 10 actors certainly of my time.

He can be remembered for his famous role of Inspector Morse. As Jack Regan in the 1970's hit TV series 'the Sweeney and as a barrister in Kavanah QC. A must see for all the family and a great DVD for my collection. The filming will bring back a few memories for people who remember wartime Britain and certainly those who were evacuated out of London to escape the German bombings. The interaction between the two main characters.Tom and the boy William was really well acted and true to the book by Michelle Magorian.",Positive "Very businesslike authority with little responsibility and only a desire to keep his/her name clean - check. A veteran cop that has bad relationship with his family - check. Mafia guys that while criminals, want to do something good vigilante style - check. A sociopath and loyal mafia guy not hesitant to kill people to make an example - check. Cops' methods being less effective than the mafia guy's brutal yet very effective methods - check. A corrupt cop tying the authority, the criminals and the police together - check.

Slow motion and/or jerky frame rates for showing what the actor's reaction can't - check. A serial killer whose background is explained in far too much detail, esp. using childhood abuse as the reason for everything - check. A child spree killer that is very, very non-menacing - check. Foreshadowing of the veteran cop's moral values not being what the killer deserves in the movie's and the majority of characters' opinion - check. Morally ambiguous and predictable ending thanks to the foreshadowing and the good veteran cop's coming to terms he should submit to the vigilante attitude of the majority of the characters - check.

Recently saw this on TV and decided to endure it because it had Dennis Hopper in it and I could not sleep - check. Realized that was a mistake and should just have stared at the ceiling - check.",Negative "The Russian movie, ""4,"" follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

""4,"" I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, ""4"" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.",Negative "Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic ""psychology"" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the ""wicked capitalistic"" that wants sing up him in ""La notte"", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in ""La aventura"", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film.

I have reviewed yesterday ""Zabriskie Point"". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find ""something different"". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the ""object women"" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!

Sorry, today, half a century after the ""revolution"" of ""La Aventura"" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except ""Le amiche"" and perhaps ""Il grido"") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.",Negative "There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...

Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the ""its so bad, its funny"" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.",Negative "I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?",Negative "Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.

This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.

The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.

Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.

Avoid.",Negative "Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.",Negative "First of all i'd just like to say this movie rawked more than any of the recent crap that hollywood has cooked up out of its bowels. McBain is a true action film with more violence than most viewers can handle. It has all of the classic elements of a late 80's/early 90's action film....the random gratuitous acts of violence (ie. when Walken and crew go in to confront the drug dealers to get money they just show up and kill them rather than letting them live and just taking their money), the snapping of necks, the guys on fire, the guys that get blown off buildings, and of course the guys who are on fire that get blown off of buildings. Walken is at his finest in this picture delivering memorable lines such as, ""let's go sit..........out on the deck."" and others that make this film a top buy off of the clearence rack at the local video store. if you have a bloodlust for unnecessary random acts of violence rent this movie today and satisfy your thirst.",Positive "This ""movie"" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in ""Promise me this"" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.

Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. ""Promise me this"" has very little ""noise"".

I liked ""Life is a miracle"". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. ""Promise me this"" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in ""Life is a miracle"". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are ""noise"", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.

Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for ""Time of the gypsies"" and ""Black cat white cat"") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. ""Black cat white cat"" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with ""Promise me this"". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.

""Promise me this"" is billed as a ""comedy"", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as ""Black cat white cat"", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that ""Black cat white cat"" was written by Gordan Mihic.

However, I know some people, who liked ""Promise me this"", they find it very positive movie.",Negative """Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow"" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: ""We thought we'd come out for some fresh air""...Dad: ""Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?""), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-""Scooby Doo""-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from ****",Negative "I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.",Negative "I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.",Negative "Normally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.

This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.

On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1

PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund.",Negative "I was dying to see this once I saw the ridiculous MEATBALLS poster and divined that it had to be the best satire ever. What a brilliant idea for a satire--the genre is rife. Unfortunately, the finished product (as I think all involved probably realize) is a catalogue of missed opportunities, not-quite-there performances and (thankfully!) a few extremely hilarious, inspired bits. Janeane Garafolo, who is very striking, looks really bad here, probably because she is uncomfortably struggling to make her flat role funny. David Hyde Pierce is just sad to watch, trying to hard to be funny and looking like a Castro nerd. Molly Shannon is so funny just SEEING her makes you laugh, but somehow her segment fails to snowball into something hysterical. Paul Rudd had great teen mannerisms and was sexy as hell, the other guys are also really funny (the nerdier ones). I think the problem is the director just doesn't move things along at the right pace. He starts out very deadpan, and that sets the monotone. But when he lets things get really outrageous (the drug sequence is the second funniest moment I've had all year in movies, the first also coming in a lame movie: Andrea Martin in ALL OVER THE GUY complaining about the movie IN & OUT), it's just plain funny. I wanted this movie to work so badly, but it just didn't. The clothes and styling for 1981 are 99.9% PERFECT, and the very few songs used are also perfect. This ends up as a medium-bad MAD TV episode, complete with frustratingly overlong sketches.",Negative "What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.",Negative """Dracula II:Ascension"" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!""Dracula II:Ascension"" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like ""Lips of Blood"",""The Brides of Dracula"" or ""Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural"" to name only a few.4 out of 10.",Negative "TRICK OR TREAT is a fine example of Hollywood jumping on the ""backwards messages in metal music"" bandwagon that Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives kick-started in the mid-'80s (other, less successful entries in this mini-genre include the awful BLACK ROSES and silly THE GATE). I was a sophomore in high school when TRICK OR TREAT came out and couldn't wait to see it. It seemed to disappear from video stores by the end of the '80s, but I finally picked up a budget-priced DVD copy a short while ago and it brought back many pleasant metal memories from back in the day. Any teenage metal nerd could relate to the trials of Eddie ""Ragman"" Weinbauer (Marc Price of ""Family Ties"")in this film as he is persecuted by the preppie ""beautiful"" people in his high school for his heavy metal fashions and musical taste. Eddie's favorite rock star is Sammi Curr (who looks a lot like Tommy Lee of Motley Crue), who is killed in a hotel fire early in the movie. Eddie is inconsolable till he receives a test pressing of Sammi's final, unreleased album from a radio DJ (Gene Simmons of Kiss in a brief cameo). Eddie soon discovers that this LP, when played backwards, allows him to communicate with the undead spirit of Sammi Curr himself! Soon Sammi is giving Eddie advice on how to get even with his preppie torturers but when the messages escalate in scariness (""Waste'em ALL... no false metal!"") Eddie tries to destroy the album, which results in Sammi coming back to life via Eddie's stereo speakers. Sammi rampages to the big dance at Eddie's high school and takes the stage to rock the crowd and disintegrate a few unlucky ""false metallers"" before Eddie arrives to save the day and the girl of his dreams. (SIGH) No, it's not terribly scary in 2006, it wasn't even scary in 1986, but TRICK OR TREAT is a movie that will bring a smile to the face of any 1980s metaller and has a kick-ass soundtrack courtesy of the cult band Fastway. Well worth seeking out if you've ever banged your head or have a taste for B-grade horror movies (or both, like me).",Positive "I'm surprised no-one has thought of doing a movie like this before. Horror is often most effective when it uses real life unpleasantness as a theme. And nobody (except for Steve Martin in The Little Shop of Horrors) likes going to the dentist. Tooth torture has been done before (see The Marathan Man for example), but this brings the terror into suburbia.

The plot revolves around a dentist, Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen), who descends into madness. Now our dear doctor wasn't playing with a full deck to begin with, but driven by jealousy and an obsessive-compulsive disorder he begins to reek havoc on those around him. The doctors spiraling mental condition is kinda close to what we see in Micheal Douglas's character in Falling Down, but with a horror edge.

Written and directed by horror stalwarts Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna, its witty and has a great flow. Also featured playing a cop, is the ever welcome Ken Foree.

Now I believe this movie would not work without the absolutely fantastic performance from Corbin Bernsen. Having really only seen him in LA Law before, I was blown away by his acting.

The sequel The Dentist 2 is also worth watching, but slightly under par compared to the original.

TTKK's Bottomline - A fun movie with some scenes that will make you cringe, capped (pun intended) by a great performance from Bernsen",Positive "I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.

Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.

The ""crew"", as well as the ""real"" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.

I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.",Negative "Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.

Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.

In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...

A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.

As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top?

It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like ""over-sized crocodile/alligator"" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.

My grade: D-",Negative "I was at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to ""really make you think."" Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, ""Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back.""",Negative Guy walking around without motive... I will never get those two hours of my life back. The guy kept on assuming identities and cheating on his pregnant wife. What was I thinking? How did this win a price anywhere? I understood he loved his father but other than that the movie was completely senseless to me. What was the purpose of walking so much and going to the funeral of a stranger for no apparent reason. How did this enrich his life??? Why did we have to see the dying old lady on her underwear????!!! Why???!!!!

I though it would be deep or about something more interesting. I do not recommend the movie even to leave on while sleeping...,Negative "OK - you want to test somebody on how comfortable they are with their adolescence and the embarrassing and maniacal changes therin - then get their immediate reaction from watching this uproarious doc about kids making socially relevant horror flicks in the suburban 80's. More than any movie I has ever seen, the film deals with burdening sexuality and ego in a way that is completely human, never dull, and flushed in the kind of inherent goodness of youth that is discolored by the fear-frenzied adult world where any quirk in youth is accredited to anything from insanity to perversion. Mini-mogul Darren Stien seems to be reaching for a deeper understanding of his triumphs and misgivings as the patriarch of strict kid's world. What he finds in himself and others isn't always pretty - but shows how one can improve and reconcile with age. What does change mean without reflection. I love this movie.",Positive "SERIES THREE- BLACKADDER THE THIRD "" If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick before you start"" Hot on the heels of the second series the show returned with the current owner of the famous name down on his luck and in service as butler to the Prince Regent, a vain and stupid foil for Blackadders venom, played by Hugh Laurie. Baldrick is still in tow as the other piece of the comedic jigsaw. The format is similar to the previous show, after all now they had found the winning formula why change things. We see Blackadder trying to get rich off of the back of the gullible regent in many more ingenious ways, trying to make Bladrick an M.P.or trying to woe a suitable bride for the prince. In many ways this is one of the most accurate of the series historically, the prince regent did take control of the throne during his fathers bout of madness and some of the characters lampooned tell a lot about the times. Samuel Johnson, William Pit and Wellington all pass through the events and all manage to steal their scenes, not an easy thing with such a stellar cast",Positive "To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read ""Jurassic Park""). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, ""what else needed to be said""? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

",Positive "I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.",Negative "After becoming completely addicted to Six Feet Under, I didn't think there would ever be another show that would come close to being as good as this show. Well, I was wrong! Lost is spellbinding!! I absolutely love this show and cannot turn it off. The richness of the characters, the intricacies of the plot, the beautiful setting are all amazing. I am totally and completely hooked. I don't know how the creators do it, but each character touches me very deeply. I feel their joy, their pain, everything, right down to my core!!! I don't have cable so I've been renting the series on Netflix. When I put it on I watch all the episodes at once and feel sad when it is over. I can't wait for the next disc to arrive at my house. This is probably the best TV show I have ever seen!!!",Positive "First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like ""Rhino"" and ""Troma"" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller ""based on Edgar Allan Poe,"" then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to ""The Premature Burial""), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...

Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.

The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.",Negative "While many unfortunately passed on, the ballroom scene is still very much alive and carrying on their legacy. Some are still very much alive and quite well, Octavia is more radiant and beautiful than ever, Willi Ninja is very accomplished and gives a great deal of support to the gay community as a whole, Pepper Labeija just passed on last year of natural cause, may she rest in peace. After Anji's passing Carmen became the mother of the house of Xtravaganza (she was in the beach scene) and she is looking more and more lovely as well. Some balls have categories dedicated to those who have passed, may they all rest in peace. There is currently another project underway known as ""How Do I Look?"", you can check out the website at www.howdoilooknyc.org.",Positive "How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely ""plastered on"" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.",Negative "Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10",Positive "Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus ""Hamlet"" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. ""Neither a lender nor a borrower be"" or ""Be true to thyself"". And of course: ""To be or not to be"".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon",Positive "-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-

i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..

and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word ""phoebus"".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)

finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..

this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..",Negative "Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.

Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost.

And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola)

There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end.

But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.",Positive "I was very surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I thought it was funny, sexy, painful, and warm. Andie MacDowell's performance was nuanced and vulnerable. For once, the director of a MacDowell film did not make her beauty another character in the film. The romance between Kate and her young man is lovely to watch and it plays out very well. Her relationship with her friends is both a thorn and a balm in her life. Imelda Stalinson, who has been a MVP in so many British films, does a great job in this. There is some tragedy in this but I think the film is saved in the end by the brilliant acting, clean direction, and witty writing.The film quality is excellent and the music is good, too, though unavailable on sound track.",Positive "I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.",Negative "This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this!",Positive "This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10",Positive "Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.",Negative "When I first heard about Moon Child, I thought it was a joke. After a few months, I figured I guess it's for real. The few reviews I read that WEREN'T made by squealing fangirls were not very promising.

When I was given the opportunity to watch it, I was fully prepared to groan, wince, and otherwise need to close my eyes to avoid the silliness.

I was more than a little surprised, and in a good way.

Yes, Moon Child has its moments of cheese, camp, and general dorkiness -- I think that's kind of impossible to avoid when it involves Gackt Camui, a man not known for his sanity -- but all in all, it was wholly enjoyable.

No, it is not a work of cinema genius but it is very, very heartfelt, amusing, with fun choreography, a touching score, and a fun cast. I know little of Japanese cinema so I can't really judge the acting but considering the fact that the cast was speaking a language or extreme dialect foreign to them at one time or another and that a couple of them have almost no acting experience, I was rather impressed.

If you can enjoy a good action movie, a good drama, a good comedy, see this film. At least rent it since it's coming to Region 1.

On a side note, there is zero homosexual/homoerotic content in this film. I didn't even see much of a subtext. Don't let people that read too much into things ruin this for you.",Positive "1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.",Negative "In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of ""Sympathy for the Devil"" in the classic album ""Beggar's Banquet"" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones – Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones – plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements – the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: ""The Stones Rolling; ""Outside Black Novel""; ""Sight and Sound""; ""All About Eve""; ""The Heart of Occident""; ""Inside Black Syntax""; and, ""Under the Stones the Beach"".

""Sympathy for the Devil"" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and ""Sympathy for the Devil"" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): ""Sympathy for the Devil""",Negative "If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana.

I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.",Negative "I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.

The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.

At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naïve Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.

There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall.",Negative "Whoever said that horror wasn't an educational film genre, huh? Thanks to this marvelous Hammer short movie, I now at least know NEVER to offer a strange visitor any wine and a slice of bread with salt in my own house, because he might just be hypnotist and this combination will give him the power to control my thoughts & mind forever! Thank you Hammer! The tenth episode in the House of Horror series is another one I've been looking forward to seeing, mainly because the guy in the director's chair was Don Sharp; one of Britain's finest filmmakers but still sadly underrated. Sharp was responsible for some very cool Hammer films, like ""Kiss of the Vampire"" and ""Rasputin: The Mad Monk"", as well as some overlooked independent productions like ""Dark Places"" and ""Psychomania"". His contribution to House of Horror is easily one of the best in the series, with a complex yet fascinating plot outline and revolving on delightful occult themes. The plot centers on two antique dealers that stumble upon a strange object resembling a mirror, but it's actually an ancient scrying device that can be used to summon Choronzhon; the demonic guardian of the abyss. The mirror is heavily desired by a satanic cult since they need it for their ceremonies, but Michael is reluctant to sell it before knowing the real value of the device. When he picks up a clearly petrified girl who's running from the cult to avoid being sacrificed, Michael is drawn even deeper into an occult conspiracy. Satanic cults and the carnal sacrifice of young women are typical British horror topics, but David Fischer's screenplay is never dull and offers plenty of neat plot twits, among which a highly inventive climax. There's also plenty of tension to admire, the dialogs are wit and the acting performances are splendid (especially John Carson as the leader of the cult is genuinely eerie). Recommended!",Positive "Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see!",Positive "Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake",Negative "This is the worst movie I ever paid to see and with the exception of ""They Saved Hitler's Brain"" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with.

The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering ""there is no difference"" with a french accent was, well you get my point.

The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie was.",Negative "- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house?

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole ""wife in love with best friend"" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.",Positive "Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.

Leon ""The Ladies' Man"" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for ""doin' it in the butt""? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that ""The Ladies' Man is back,"" to her obvious chagrin.

Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.

See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice.",Positive "I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought ""hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore"". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this",Negative This is one of Jackies best films that is him without opera buddies Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao it has one of the best openings in any action film and it carrys on in that way with Jackie showing some high quality stunts the only critisim is that in the middle it gets a bit slow but it shows up for a frantic last 25 mins in the film and the end credits show what a crazy fool jackie chan is just to keep us film addicts happy,Positive "From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!",Negative "Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them.",Negative "If you haven't seen Eva Longoria from the TV show ""Desperate House Wives"" then you are missing out. Eva is going to be one of the biggest Latina stars and you'll be seeing her in the theaters soon. This was Eva's first film and she does a fantastic job acting. She was 24 when she shot it, and looked hot then. As for this low budget film, it's pretty good for the first time director, who has another soon to be released movie ""Juarez, Mexico"" currently playing at many film festivals across the United States. In fact, it appears that it may have a limited theatrical release from some news. What would be nice to see is a ""Snitch'2"" with a higher budget.",Positive This was a really funny movie.

Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.

I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.

Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!!,Negative "Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?",Negative "This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe.",Positive "This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen!!!!

I can honestly say I have never seen a movie worse than this one!!!

AND I MEAN NEVER!!!!

I'm a BIG fan of ""B"" horror movies. As you may imagine.... I've been exposed to some of worst that the movie industry has to offer.

I was lured to this movie by it's title. I mean c'mon... what true fan of horror wouldn't be intrigued by a title like ""Vampires vs. Zombies""??? Images of the ""undead"" battling each other to the ""undeath"" danced in my head. I thought to myself... ""this I've got to see""!!!!

Well.... sorry to say.... ""this I wish I hadn't seen""!!!!!

This movies title is very misleading to say the least. There was no vampires fighting zombies. In fact, there is no plot!!!! If you were to ask me what this movie is all about I could honestly tell you I have no idea!!!

There was no plot!!!!

There was no story!!!!

This movie absolutely makes no sense at all!!!!

At the end of this debacle... I found myself feeling sorry for the poor souls who had invested their money into this project for they surely have no business sense!!!",Negative "Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.",Positive "Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money.

This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.",Negative the film looks like as if the director was forced to make this movie by some gang of terrorists . it should actually be called dino crap.

there is nothing good about this movie.. even the actors are not worth a penny. don't waste your time watching this movie. the director should be shot in the head for having the mentality to create such a bad movie . i mean isn't he ashamed of looking at peoples faces after they have seen his movie ? the dinocroc looks as if it was made in power point and pretty much cut-and-paste stuff. and its the same old story . man plays god . creates some creature . it escapes and is happy eating people . and finally a pretty girl and a guy in a sleeveless shirt has to come and kill it . bla bla.. u will figure out the plot in the first 5 minutes of the movie,Negative "Most Hollywood movies fail to capture the full range of experience of teenagers. This film demonstrates exactly how to do it right. It combines elements of humour, suffering, rebellion, etc. in a way that is comlex & sympathetic. The ending could be a bit clearer, but the fact that the director doesn't spell everything out for you in advance before coming to the conclusion means that this film assumes a more intelligent viewer.",Positive "As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed.",Positive "I remember a certain Tuesday, the morning of 18/6/02 to be exact. I was dozed off, trying to convince myself to get out of bed when a horrific explosion was heard. I went to the kitchen where I have a view of several neighborhoods in the southern Jerusalem and saw a pillar of smoke rising from a distant point, the sight of the smoke was followed a minute later by the waling of sirens. I remember rushing to my bedroom, taking out my binoculars, racing back to the kitchen and spotting the image of a glass shattered bus. The bus was still near the pick up station where a terrorist boarded on it and with a single click on a TNT device, murdered 25 passengers, many of whom were on their way to school. The wife of a good friend of mine, sat on the bus at the back row, a seemingly arbitrary and meaningless decision that saved her life.

I'm sure that every Israeli has at least one terror-related memory he wishes he never would have had and it was only a matter of time before someone made a film about it. As it turned out, the movie was about to become a repressed memory of its own.

The film is about a play-write on a dry run, Haim Buzaglo (portrayed by, hmmm, Haim Buzaglo who also wrote and directed the film) that spends the better part of his day conducting staring contests with his blank word processor page. In the meantime, his girlfriend, a field reporter for the Israeli commercial channel, decides to make a piece about a debt ridden ex-army officer. Buzaglo, bored and a bit paranoid due what is medically known as the ""what on earth this hot babe is dating me"" syndrome, asks a private eye to conduct a stakeout on his girlfriend.

As the detective progresses in his investigation, his observations are permeating into the play and later on, to the lives of its actors. In the meantime, the play metamorphoses from a comic play into an indictment against the aloofness of the Israeli society. As for the movie, well, the movie becomes an exercise in frenzy editing, ensconced in its petty cardboard characters and unreliable dialogs while drifting miles away from the subject it was supposed to deal with in the first place.

When I say ""cardboard characters"" I refer to the characters that under the writer/director's obsession for a ""meaningful"" film, were devoid of any genuine dialogs and any shred of reliability. I won't elaborate too much about it. Suffice to say that I'm sure that homeless barefoot male prostitutes rarely go the theater. With the intention to see a play, that is.

This movie, according to Haim Buzaglo himself is the first part of a current agenda trilogy. I sincerely hope that the other two films will be derived from the experiences like the one I wrote about in the beginning of my review as opposed to the secluded world of characters that are anything but existent and a plot that is anything but compelling.

4 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.

P.S. This movie was a landmark in austerity. It was shot in ten days, all the cast worked for free and the entire cost of the film was about 12,000$ (no, I didn't omit a zero or two, twelve thousand dollars). Makes you wonder why it took 34,000$ to complete Blair witch project.",Negative "The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying ""well he takes French commands"" and start talking Spanish.

James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.

To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.

If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.",Negative "Name just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.

Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie ""Duty, Honor, Country"" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.

Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man.",Positive "For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell ""tearjerker"" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it!",Positive "I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or ""big"" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.",Positive "I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.

Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...

Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.

In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.

Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...",Positive "This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal ""Elvira's Haunted Hills"" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!",Positive "Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out.",Positive "Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.",Negative "Although it has been 2 years, I still remember the complete waste that comprises the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately, I came across this movie after my friends and I selected it while browsing through the new releases at Blockbuster. We decided to pick the movie because it was the only one we all had not seen and it sounded like it may be enjoyable. Although it has been quite some time since I viewed the movie, I still remember the lack of plot (seriously, there is no true plot), and complete waste of time that was spent watching the movie. If you are in the video store and this film catches your eye, walk on and find a better movie. If you did end up seeing this movie, I understand your pain :)",Negative "Sadly IMDb does not allow me to rate Judges lower than 1. What a shame. This ghastly movie is so bad that I actually turned the damned thing off well before the ending. The script had a few bright moments, but the directing, editing, acting, audio quality, and especially timing on line delivery was so abhorrent as make Judges utterly unbearable.

Judges was advertised as being like a modern day comic book style western, but in reality was nothing of the sort. What it is most like is dog poop on the bottom of your shoe. You can try to pretend it is okay, but it just keeps on stinking.

Why video stores think it is okay to carry this kind of crap with constant gaps in the audio and worse than high school drama class acting is beyond me. We rent movies in order to see something better that what is on television. But Judges is worse than the most pathetic SciFi Channel original. I intend to demand my money back from Hollywood Video.",Negative "Upon The Straight Story release in 1999, it was praised for being David Lynch's first film that ignored his regular themes of the macabre and the surreal. Based on a true story of one man and his journey to visit his estranged brother on a John Deere '66 mower, at first glance its an odd story for Lynch to direct. Yet as the story develops you can see some of Lynch's trademark motifs coming through.

Lynch's focus on small town America and its inhabitants is still as prevalent as in his previous efforts such as Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks, but the most notable difference is that the weirdness is curbed down. The restrictions imposed means that the film has the notable accolade of being one of the few live action films that I can think of that features a G rating. Incredibly significant, this films stands as evidence that beautiful and significant family films can be produced.

The Straight Story was the first feature which Lynch directed where he had no hand at writing. For many Lynch devotees this was a huge negative point. Almost universally acclaimed, the only overly negative review by James Brundage of filmcritic.com focused on this very criticism, that it wasn't a typical Lynch film. ""Lynch is struggling within the mold of a G-Rated story that isn't his own."" Brundage claims, with his protagonist Alvin Straight ""quoting lines directly from Confucious."" He argues that the story is weak and the dialogue even worse. Yet this is about the only criticism that many will read for the film. Whilst it is true that it is not Lynch in the sense of Eraserhead, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive - all films which I also adore, The Straight Story features a different side of Lynch that is by no means terrible. If you are a Lynch fan, it is most important to separate that side of Lynch with this feature.

The narrative is slow and thoughtful, which gives you a real sense of the protagonist's thoughts as he travels to his destination. Alvin constantly is reminded about his past and his relationships with his wife, children and his brother. Yet particularly significant is that there are no flashbacks, which only adds to the effect, which reminded me of my conversations with my grandparents. The conclusion arrives like watching a boat being carried down a slow meandering river and it is beautiful to watch. The natural landscapes of the US are accentuated and together with the beautiful soundtrack by Angelo Badalamenti, makes me yearn to go to America. The performances are also excellent with every actor believable in their roles and Richard Farnsworth is particularly excellent. His Oscar nomination was greatly deserved and it was a shame that he didn't win. Regardless, however it is probably the finest swan-song for any actor.

So whilst The Straight Story features none of Lynch's complex narratives or trademark dialogue, the film is a fascinating character study about getting old and comes highly recommended!",Positive "This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)",Negative "The film picks up after last years remake with the military setting up electronic surveillance equipment in the desert where the attacks in the first film happened. The crew is killed not long before a group of soldiers on a training exercise show up to find no one around. You can fill in the rest.

This is a paycheck picture all around. There seems to be no passion in anyone's performances, nor in anyone behind the camera. This is a movie that was made for the money and nothing else. On some level this should have worked, it could have been a more horrific Southern Comfort (where National Guardsmen run afoul of some people in the swamps), but instead its not much of anything. In large part you can blame the script, written unbelievably in part by Wes Craven, which hits the same old targets again and again. Add to the mess the fact that the direction is dull and the set up of sequences is so lack luster as to remove any inherent tension in any scene.

Its not bad as such, but badly made and dull. Let me put my feelings into context: The reason I saw this film was because a local multiplex screwed up and ran this film instead of the kids flick the Last Mimzy and I wanted to see what caused the out cry(I mean the films have so much in common-he says sarcastically). I'm convinced that this film will only scare those who like the last Mimzy.",Negative "I saw this film at the Taos Film Festival last year, and was just overwhelmed by it. It's a rich, warm novel brought to the screen, beautifully acted, and well directed. More than anything, it reminded me of the films of David Lean, both in its ability to handle a complex story, and its knack for creating powerful scenes that affect you on several different levels. The best movie I've seen in years.",Positive "The British production company Amicus is generally known as the specialist for horror anthologies, and this great omnibus called ""The House That Dripped Blood"" is doubtlessly the finest Amicus production I've seen so far (admittedly, there are quite a few that I have yet to see, though). ""The House That Dripped Blood"" consists of four delightfully macabre tales, all set in the same eerie mansion. These four stories are brought to you in a wonderfully Gothic atmosphere, and with one of the finest ensemble casts imaginable. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee (Cushing and Lee are two of my favorite actors ever), as well as Denholm Elliott and the ravishing Ingrid Pitt star in this film - so which true Horror fan could possibly afford to miss it? No one, of course, and the film has much more to offer than just a great cast. ""The House That Dripped Blood"" revolves around an eerie rural mansion, in which strange things are happening. In four parts, the film tells the tales of four different heirs.

The first tale, ""Method For Murder"", tells the story of Horror novelist Charles Hyller (Denholm Elliott), who moves into the House with his wife. After moving in, the writer suddenly feels haunted by a maniac of his own creation... The first segment is a great kickoff to the film. The story is creepy and macabre throughout and the performances are entirelly very good.

In the second story, ""Waxworks"", retired businessman Phillip Grayson (Peter Cushing) moves into the house, and suddenly feels drawn to a mysterious Wax Museum in the nearby town... The great Peter Cushing once again delivers a sublime performance in this, and the rest of the performances are also very good. The tale is delightfully weird, and the second-best of the film, after the third.

The third tale, ""Sweets To The Sweet"" is by far the creepiest and most brilliant of the four. John Reed (Christopher Lee) moves in with his little daughter. The private teacher and nanny Mrs. Norton, whom Mr. Reed has employed to instruct his daughter, is appalled about her employer's strictness towards his daughter, and is eager to find out what reason the overprotective father's views on upbringing may have... This best segment maintains a very creepy atmosphere and a genuinely scary plot. Christopher Lee is, as always, superb in his role. Nyree Dawn Porter is also very good as the nanny, and my special praise goes to then 11-year-old Chloe Franks. This ingenious segment alone makes the film a must-see for every true Horror-fan.

In the fourth segment, Horror-actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) moves into the house with his sexy mistress/co-star Carla (Ingrid Pitt). This fourth story is satire, more than it is actually Horror. It is a highly amusing satire, however, and there are many allusions to other Horror films. At one point Henderson indirectly refers to Christopher Lee, who stars in the previous, third segment...

All four segments have a delightfully macabre sense of humor and a great atmosphere. As stated above, the third segment is by far the creepiest and greatest, but the other three are also atmospheric and often macabrely humorous Horror tales that every Horror lover should appreciate. An igenious atmosphere, a macabre sense of humor, genuine eerieness and a brilliant cast make this one a must-see. In Short: ""The House That Dripped Blood"" is an excellent Horror-omnibus that no lover of British Horror could possibly afford to miss. Highly Recommended!",Positive "I heard about this movie when watching VH1's ""100 Most Metal Moments."" On the segment, Gene Simmons (who played a cameo) and several other interviewees discussed how utterly awful this movie is. Unlike most people, I'm often more curious about checking out movies that have reputations for being ridiculously bad than, say, a masterpiece of cinema. The advantage of having that sort of attitude is half the time I find out that the movies are nowhere near as bad as people said, and I end up enjoying them a lot more than I initially expected. That was my experience with ""Trick or Treat."" Now, it's hard to make a movie about a teenage boy who receives messages from a dead heavy metal star by playing one of his vintage records backwards without people scoffing at the premise. Sure, it's certainly a strange premise, but one that's never been done before! Give the filmmakers points for originality for Pete's sake! If you're looking to buy the DVD, having no prior knowledge of the movie, don't be fooled into thinking Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons are the stars. However, though Simmons has a thankless role, Ozzy does have a funny cameo as a Reverend (that's right, a Reverend!!) who speaks out against heavy metal. For one thing, it's funny seeing Ozzy with short hair. And for another thing, you can't help but laugh at the irony. Sure, it's a cheap shot, but an effective one. The acting is pretty good. I found the performances convincing. The teen characters are horribly clichéd. So expect the usual array of jocks and nerds. And like in every one of these movies, the pretty girl is a decent person who has sympathy for the alienated main character, yet continues to go out with her jock boyfriend. Why's she going out with such a complete jerk in the first place? Because the plot needs an obstacle. No other reason. But I can't deny that one of my guilty pleasures is watching the evil jocks in these movies go down, since I was an outcast in high school. The movie kept my interest for the most part, but the third act is way too conventional and caused me to roll my eyes as there would be one predictable situation after another. But altogether the film is not at all bad and definitely worth viewing on a rainy day. (7 out of 10)",Positive "Umi wa miteita' ('The Sea is Watching') was Akira Kurasawa's swansong to film: his adaptation of his favored novelist Shugoro Yamamoto's story into a screenplay he intended to film was his final mark he left on a brilliant career. Director Kei Kumai pays homage to both Kurosawa and Yamamoto in presenting this visually stunning transformation of word to image.

Set in 19th century Japan, the story explores the lives of the women of a Geisha house whose sole purpose in life is to earn money by pleasuring men. The house is run by an older couple who are genteel and the geishas are an enchanting group of women who know their trade and take pride in their careers. Each has a reason for turning to the life of geisha. Oshin (Nagiko Tono) supports her family who live in a neighboring village, Kikuno (Misa Shimizu) has customers both good and evil whom she manages to sustain with her stories of her higher caste. Oshin befriends an endangered samurai, falls in love with the gentle fellow, only to find that he must not marry out of his caste and leaves his pleasures with Oshin to marry his promised betrothed. Oshin's heart bruises easily but is always supported emotionally and physically/monetarily by Kikuno and the other geishas.

A handsome samurai Ryosuke (Masatoshi Nagase) enters Oshin's life and develops the first trusted and devoted relationship with her. Kikuno is beset by problems, deciding whether to accept the humble love of an old man who wishes to marry her, and coping with a rich but abusive customer. All the while the sea is watching and as a typhoon destroys the geisha house and street, Oshin and Kikuno sit atop the roof waiting for the promised rescue by Ryosuke. The manner in which the story ends is one of sacrifice, love, and devotion. The sea is watching and will find protection for true love.

The photography by Kazuo Okuhara is breathtakingly beautiful: night scenes with glowing lanterns and colorful geisha interiors are matched with recurring glimpses of the sea both calm and turbulent. The acting is a bit strained for Edo art, but the characters are well created and keep the story credible. The one distraction which is definitely NOT something Kurosawa would have condoned is the tacky Western music score that sounds like cheap soap opera filler except for the isolated moments when real Japanese music on authentic instruments graces the track. But in the end there is enough of Kurosawa's influence to imbue this film with his brand of dreamlike wonder that will always maintain his importance on world cinema. Grady Harp",Positive "There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see.",Positive "With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie.",Negative "I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the ""dating"" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-)",Positive There are few really hilarious films about science fiction but this one will knock your sox off. The lead Martian's Jack Nicholson take-off is side-splitting. The plot has a very clever twist that has be seen to be enjoyed. This is a movie with heart and excellent acting by all. Make some popcorn and have a great evening.,Positive "It's very sly for all of the 60's look to the movie. The humor is quite gentle, but it grew on me much more than I expected. The cast is first-rate and they appear to be having a wonderful time. Ustinov wanders through the film muttering some quite funny things under his breath, and it's all very inconsequential; I'll buy the movie as soon as it comes out on DVD. The plot is that Ustinov as an embezzler released from prison posing as a computer whiz and embezzling money from an American company with an office in London. Maggie Smith is his secretary for a while, and watching her get fired from many different jobs is part of the fun. Bob Newhart is his usual deadpan self, and Karl Malden has fun as the dense and sleazy executive running the London office. The ending is funny and nicely cynical.",Positive "Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director).",Positive "Spoiler alert – although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter ""in charge"" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.",Negative "It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. ""The Amati Girls"" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.

The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since ""For Roseanna"".

With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in ""The Amati Girls"". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.

The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.

It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'.",Positive "This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.

The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.",Negative "David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.

The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.

I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.

First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.

Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.

Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.

Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.",Negative "I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10",Negative "I'm a big fan of Troma but I can't figure out why they bought the rights to this movie, It's so boring I felt like I was watching for 3 hours. Some where on the plot summary it says ""but what Satan doesn't know he's stuck with annoying tourists"" Well they didn't seem to bother him in the movie, just me.

The only good thing about this movie is the actor who plays Satan, I like bad movie's but it was just boring.",Negative "Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the ""screwee"", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of ""Hellraiser"", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.",Positive "Pandro S. Berman was ""In Charge of Production"" but that made him the so-called Line Producer. But who produced this epic, filmed not in Arizona but in California's Mohave Desert where scavengers have made off with all of the remnants of the ""gold temple"", the Thuggee huts, the British outpost at Muri, the village of Tantrapur, etc. The minor technical faults can and must be forgiven. What's unforgivable is the lack of an Oscar for best music, although maybe the Academy didn't offer such at the time. A single theme was played in various tempos including waltz, march and sweet, mood-setting. Brilliant! One of the curious aspects of the production was the widow Kipling's demands. An actor playing Kipling appears briefly before and after the battle scenes. In the initial release his scenes were cut, per Mrs. Kipling's demands. Later they were included and lent a ""connection"" of Kipling's immortal poem to Ben Hecht's screenplay. Interestingly, this very typically and pro-British story was by a great screenwriter who himself hated the British.",Positive """Spin it!""

The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, ""TaleSpin,"" the TV cartoon series that featured characters from ""The Jungle Book."" Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!

This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.

And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of ""Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!""

10/10",Positive "I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.

Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.

Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as ""the biggest explosive ever"") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.

Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.

The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.

The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.

Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.

This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.

Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.

Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating drama—for a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.

Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.

Grade: D-",Negative "Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...

Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.

In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.

Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance.",Positive "When I rented this movie I thought I was going to see a horror-movie. However, there is little horror in this typical seventies mystery-drama directed by strange James T. Flocker. Nice-looking Matt Boston carries the picture with his fine performance and the typical strange atmosphere of Flocker's movies is all-present.",Positive "How can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later...""Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?"" I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.",Negative "This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.

However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.

The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.

I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.

A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.

4/10",Negative "It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.",Negative "**SPOILERS**KHAMOSH is totally unrealistic, lacks a plot, and was basically only made to see stars portray themselves. The most suspenseful scene in the movie was when Shabana Azmi is in the shower and then we see her TV playing the shower scene from PSYCHO. This movie actually expected users to believe that Naseeruddin Shah's character has a good enough memory to remember where certain shots were fired and how many!

***SPOILER BEGINS***

At the end, the killer spills his guts to Shabana Azmi long enough to allow Naseeruddin Shah's character to run up and shoot him!

***SPOILER ENDS***

It is a little humorous (only a little) in the beginning to hear the director and cast members throwing insults at each other and hearing Shabana Azmi exclaim, ""Oh sh-t!""

Overall, a baaaaaaaaaaad movie!

Rating: ** out of ********** (2 out of 10)",Negative "This is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.

Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's ""in the family way"". Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says ""the stars are at their best here"". By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!

PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).

UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the ""NOT HELPFULS"") and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable film.",Negative "This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.",Positive "The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.

The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.

Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.

WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.

As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.

What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.

It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.

This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.

73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.

The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in.",Positive "Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.

This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around him—a man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.

Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.

The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.

Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope.",Positive "

Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.

One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.

One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.

One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.

One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.

One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.

This movie did not ring true for me.",Negative "Winchester 73 gets credit from many critics for bringing back the western after WWII. Director Anthony Mann must get a lot of credit for his excellent direction. Jimmy Stewart does an excellent job, but I think Stephen McNalley and John McIntire steal the movie with their portrayal of two bad guys involved in a high stakes poker game with the treasured Winchester 73 going to the winner. This is a good script with several stories going on at the same time. Look for the first appearance of Rock Hudson as Young Bull. Thank God, with in a few years, we would begin to let Indians play themselves in western films. The film is in black and white and was shot in Tucson Arizona. I would not put Winchester 73 in the category of Stagecoach, High Noon or Shane, but it gets an above average recommendation from me.

.",Positive "This film appears to draw a borderline - on one side, those who love it, on the other, those who find it unbearable.

To begin with, there is an awful lot of comedy in this film that many viewers are not ""getting"". Of course jet Li's Mask looks like Bruce Lee's Kato - he's supposed to, it's a joke. The guy who has a time-bomb sewn to his heart - outrageous? of course, it's a joke! Some readers will probably ask, if this film is supposed to be so funny, why all the excessive and gory violence? well, for one thing the tolerance for this level of violence is actually different, from culture to culture; and while Hong Kong audiences would recognize this violence is extreme, it's certainly only slightly more than average for a HK action film.

Also, Black Mask is really the kind of film that takes a genre's conventions and pushes them to extremes, simply because the conventions themselves are wholly unrealistic. After decades of watching people get shot without any noticeable open wounds, many people were horrified to see Bonnie and Clyde and the outlaws of the Wild Bunch spurting blood all over the place. But the fact is, when you're shot with rapid metal projectile, it's almost certain that blood will spurt, especially from an artery.

This film is a Chinese comic book movie. It is true that the Spiderman films never get this gory - but if they were faithful to reality, they would be! Well, despite its comic-book origins, this film is faithful to reality.

The only complaint I have is the flashy, over-stylized filming and editing. If the makers of this film had shot it with an eye to Hollywood-style nostalgia (as, e.g., The Rocketeer, or the recent Sky captain film), I doubt anyone would have found it offensive.

But as it stands, I still had a lotta fun watching this movie.",Positive "Dave (Devon Sawa) and his friends Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael Maronna) have scammed their way through college. When creepy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) discovers their secret, he blackmails them into helping him score with beautiful, good-hearted student Angela (James King).

Stupid and incompetent ""comedy"" - a lot more groan-inducing than laugh-inducing. Movie tries appealing to its target audience with its disgusting gags - but NONE OF THEM WORK. What's more, it's full of worthless, unappealing characters - and Schwartzman's character is so repulsive he's a major turn-off. Movie even tries using 50's/60's sexpot/actress Mamie Van Doren in the movie's most outrageous scene. YUCK!!!

Further bringing it down are its utter predictability and the waste (yet again) of veteran comedic actor Joe Flaherty's talent - when's this guy going to stop accepting every role that comes along and do something worthwhile?

All in all, the only thing I liked was James (a.k.a. Jaime) King, who was very appealing - and deserved better.

This gets no more than one out of ten from me.",Negative "-SPOILES- Lame south of the border adventure movie that has something to do with the blackmail of a big cooperate executive Rosenlski the president of Unasco Inc. by on the lamb beachcomber David Ziegler who's living the life of Reilly, or Ziegler, in his beach house in Cancun Mexico.Having this CD, that he gave to his brother James, that has three years of phone conversations between Rosenlski and the President of the United States involved in criminal deals. This CD has given David an edge over the international mobsters who are after him.

The fact that James get's a little greedy by trying to shake down Rosenlski for 2 million in diamonds not only cost him his life but put David in danger of losing his as well. Ropsenlski want's to negotiate with David for the CD by getting his ex-wife Liz to talk to him about giving it up, Rosnelski made a deal to pay off her debts if she comes through. David is later killed by Rosenliski's Mexican hit-man Tony, with the help of a great white shark, who just doesn't go for all this peaceful dealings on his boss' part.

Tony had taken the CD that Liz left for his boss at a local hotel safe and now want's to murder James, like he did David, and at the same time keep the CD to have something over Rosenlski.

David who had secretly hidden the diamonds that James had on him at the time of his murder is now the target of Tony and his men to shut him up for good. David also wants to take the diamonds and at the same time give his boss Rosenlski the impression that the CD that David had is lost but use it later, without Rosenlski knowing who's behind it,to blackmail him.

The movie ""Night of the Sharks"" has a number of shark attacks in it with this huge one-eyed white shark who ends up taking out about a half dozen of the cast members including Tony. David who's a firm believer in gun-control uses knives high explosives and Molotov cocktails, as well as his fists, to take out the entire Tony crew. Even the killer shark is finished off by Tony but with a hunting knife, not a gun. When it came to using firearms to save his friend and sidekick Paco a girlfriend Juanita and his priest Father Mattia lives from Tony and his gang guns were a no-no with David; he was more of a knife and spear man then anything else.

The ending of the movie was about as predictable as you can make it with David thought to be killed by the one-eyed shark later pops up out of the crowd,after Rosenlski was convinced that he's dead and leaves the village. David continues his life as a free living and loving beachcomber with no one looking to kill him and about two million dollars richer. to David's credit he had his friend Paco give Rosenski back his CD but under the conditions that if anything happened to him his cousin, who Rosenlski doesn't know who and where he is, will shoot his big mouth off and let the whole world know about his dirty and criminal dealings.",Negative "Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.

Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner.

Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.

Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.

The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?",Negative "I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, ""Rob Roy"" scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a ""popular"" film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And ""Rob Roy"" has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than ""Braveheart""--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!)",Positive "I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making ""straight-to-video"" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a ""new perspective"" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a ""new version of the movie we all love."" Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original ""Lion King"" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.

Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...

The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.",Negative "I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised.",Positive "The back of the DVD box says Ellen Page co-stars in this movie. She does not even appear until two thirds of the movie is over and then its in minor role. I don't consider it a supporting role either, but rather a ""bit"" part. Also the plot has many unexplained elements. Some examples are: why does the main character reject her oldest son? Why does her youngest son drive head on into the train? He says its for a ""sucker"" bet which doesn't explain anything. Obviously the screenwriter doesn't know the definition of a sucker bet. This film is not worthy of the rental price in my opinion. Save your money and view it for free on TV if you think it needs to be seen.",Negative "This movie is maybe the most touching and uplifting one that I have ever seen. I am not a religious person, but sometimes a great piece of art like this movie can give me an almost religious experience. One suddenly realizes that there is really meaning to life.

I must admit that when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical. I thought the plot sounded contrived and I was afraid that the story would be banal. But being a David Lynch fan I decided to give it a go. It took me about 30 minutes to be fully captured by the movie, but then I was completely lost in it. There is so much wisdom and warmth in this movie! I left the cinema feeling that I had truly learned something valuable about life.

This is not a typical David Lynch movie, and in some ways it was very surprising that he should make such a film after exploring the dark sides of human nature for so many years. On the other hand, I am not surprised that he manages to convey deep emotions and profound human insight because I also thought he managed that very well in The Elephant Man. Lynch is one of the most gifted directors around and I think The Straight Story is his best yet. 9.5/10",Positive "Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.

It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible ""action"" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.

There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.

The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better.

In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.

",Negative "In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across ""Burned at the Stake"" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of ""big bug"" films and similar works years earlier.",Positive "I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?

Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing ""cold"". Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country.",Positive "I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another ""You Got Served"" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinée showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.

edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1.",Positive "1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a ""sleepwalker"" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.",Negative "Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!

This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.

Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.

It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7.",Positive """Father of the Pride "" was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in ""The Simple life "") I admit that are many similarities with this show and ""The Simpsons"" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .

Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like ""Mission Hill "" a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame .",Positive "Zombie Review #3

**Spoilers**

Few films are actually ""so bad they're good"", and Zombi 3 is not just bad, it's wretchedly, unforgivably bad in so many ways that a whole new language may be needed just to describe them all

More than that, it's a film credited to Lucio Fulci that even by his standards has absolutely no coherency, sense or reason. However we can't blame Fulci as it wasn't really directed by him but by Bruno Mattei, who doesn't even have Fulci's sense of style to help carry the film. Mattei seems to have brought little to the film but staggering ineptitude.

So, I'm ashamed to say how much I enjoyed every worthless minute of Zombi 3. It has no redeeming features - in a genre known for thin characters, weak story, and lack of film making skill, Zombi 3 pushes the boat out but in doing so it's even funnier than Nightmare City.

The ""action"" starts when the ""Death 1"" gas is stolen from a military base, and damaged in the escape. Who is the thief, why did he steal it, and why did the US military think that creating cannibalistic legions of the living dead would be a good idea? All these questions and more will fail to be answered in Zombi 3....

After hiding out at a hotel, the infected thief goes mad from all the green plastecine growing on his face before being tracked down by the army who somewhat foolishly decide the best way to dispose of his corpse will be to burn it, sending ""Death 1"" up into the atmosphere resulting in... zombie birds! Who then attack people and turn them into zombie people!!! (if zombies are cannibals, why don't the zombie birds just attack other birds?)

Then we meet our ""heroes"", a trio of horny GIs and a coachload of girls. There's a couple of other guys with them too, but they're not important - NO ONE is important here. You'll be hard pressed to remember anyone's face, let alone their name or find a reason to care about them. They end up hiding out at the same hotel as the thief (""a week ago this place was buzzing with life, now it's buzzing with flies!"") but there's no escape from the undead.

By this point you'll either be completely sucked in or you'll have turned the damned thing off. The script is so appalling even the greatest acting in the world couldn't save it, so it's just as well they have some of the worst - and not just the human characters, the zombie acting here is an all time low. There's no consistancy in how the zombies behave - some shamble about in the time honored style, others engage in full on fist fights or charge around with machettes, not to mention the zombies who are still able to talk (a gimmick that gives the film it's HORRIFYING TWIST ENDING). They die from gunshots to the chest (rather than the head) and even get knocked out by a good left-hook. How can you punch out a zombie???!!!!! In fact the emphasis on badly done 80s action often makes it resemble an episode of V...

The zombies also spend a lot of time hiding, seemingly waiting for hours in ridiculous places on the chance some poor sap will pass by and get the fright of their life. They hide in bushes, in garages, in huts, on roofs, in the water, and even underneath pregnant women. At one point a zombie follows a woman up the stairs. To kill and eat her? No! To push her into the water, those zombies and their wacky sense of humour!

There is plenty of gore though. Limbs are hacked, wounds ooze green pus, and there's much in the way of flesh eating and people getting their faces mushed in. There's nothing to match the originals eyeball piercing, but if bad make up effects are your bag you won't be let down.

All this and I've not even mentioned the awful music, the inexplicable flying zombie head, the scientist whose acting actually manages to stand out as REALLY bad, or the final chilling punchline.... in an ingenious twist on the originals radio station being overrun by zombies, Zombi 3 gives us an actual zombie DJ!! ""He's gone over to their side!"" our escaping hero's cry, before vowing to continue fighting against the undead in a sequel that sadly never came.

Zombi 3 is rubbish - it would be no loss to the world if every single print was destroyed and all records of it's existence erased, yet somehow I feel my life is richer for having seen it.

Did I say richer? I meant 88 minutes shorter...",Negative "Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me ""what did she say that for?"" and ""why did he do that?"" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply ""bringing realism"" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. ""Prehysteria!"" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.",Negative "Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away.

We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again.

On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.

Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time?

Closets, that's what.

Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called ""CLOSET"", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: ""what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!""",Negative "The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.

That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.

I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.",Negative "I saw that movie few days ago. This movie is so great that it makes me feel that if you want something really bad that you have always dreamed about it - you can have it. This shows a big wish come true trought happiness and sadness, hopeless and failure. But if you are strong enough and your heart really belongs to something that you love you can make things different and be happy.",Positive "I would have enjoyed this movie slightly more had not been for Jason (Herb) Evers constant harping on experiment. Many early reviewers of The Seven Samurai accused Toshiro Mifune of overacting. Yet, as more and more critics viewed that film they saw it as being purposefully done. Jason Evers is obviously not Toshiro Mifune, and his overacting is exactly that.

Most of the actors in this B classic were rather good actors, minus Evers and the showgirls. If you watch this movie, you would have noticed Evers shouting almost every line, that is until he is smoking and blowing the smoke coolly out his nose.

The special effects were par for the course in a B movie such as this one. In hindsight, there isn't much that stands out in my mind as fantastically good or bad for this movie.",Negative "i went into this hoping it would be the ""thought provoking"" little gem people have reviewed this as. i love indy films and expected to dig this too. knowing what a hot button this topics is i expected to be really entertained, maybe even see an outsiders perspective.

all i can say is wow....if your into self torture, or mutilation then maybe you'll like this. personally i don't like the idea of being pee'd on or cutting myself so i thought it was garbage. bad script, bad acting, bad story, bad directing, bad editing....i could go on. i have no clue why a reviewer claimed he or she was making a political point by giving this movie a 10. that's misleading and ignorant. voting for a movie on IMDb isn't setting a precedent! it just lets other people think that a garbage bomb like this is OK to watch as long as it's controversial (this film is not, it tries VERY HARD to be but fails).

you know the movie is bad when 15 minutes into it your praying that all main characters die horrifically. unfortunately they do die, but not in the painful manners that would have given the viewer some justice or vindication for having watched the 2 hours of crap they just endured.

do yourself a favor, just don't even bother. i got this movie in a bargain bin at my local video store for .50 and feel ripped off!",Negative "We rented the DVD hoping for a good western. The film was pretty and the scenes reasonable, but the ideas were very bad. Here are my problems with the film.

In the first part, why exactly did the bad guy kill the mine owner? Not really connected to the movie except to establish how bad he was and to have a hideout.

The bank employee gone bad just acts too poorly to convincingly decide to hire killers to off his employers. At least keep us guessing. No character developed at all for the bank owners or the bank employee.

Very long delay in much of anything happening.

Absurd premise that Martin still needed to see the judge after the gang confessed to killing the in-laws. Even more absurd that he confesses to judge and judge will not listen to the sheriff guy. even more ridiculous that Martin his hung and rope breaks then the sheriff takes him at gunpoint to finally head back to his town and save his wife from the bad bank employee. Wouldn't he just return after the quick dispatch of the gang to save wife and arrest bad bank guy? Just send the judge a note that gang confessed before being killed on trail????!!! Overall, very sad acting and no point to movie.",Negative "i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.

in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is ""right"". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.

denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone.",Positive "It was extremely low budget(it some scenes it looks like they recorded with a home video recorder). However it does have a good plot line, and its easy to follow. 8 years after shooting her sexually abusive step father Amanda is released from the psychiatric ward, with the help of her doctor who she is secretly having an affair with. The doctor ends up renting her a house and buying her a car. But within the first 20 minutes of the movie Amanda kills him and buries him in her backyard. Then she see's her neighbor Richard sets eyes on him and stops at nothing until she has him. She acts innocent but after another neighbor Buzz finds out that Amanda killed that doctor and attempted to kill Richards wife Laurie (this is after Amanda and him get it on in the hot tub). Then she stops acting so Innocent and kills Buzz and later on attempts to kill Richard whom she supposedly loves and cares for. And you'll have to rent the movie to find out if Amanda dies or not. Overall good movie, reminds me a lot of my life you know the whole falling for the neighbor and stopping at nothing until you have him part.",Positive "Sadly, more downs than ups. The plot was pretty decent. I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, but it had a story, unlike the other modern horror flicks. The other good thing was the cast. I'm not saying that the acting was good, because it wasn't, but every actor/actress was hot and attractive.

One of the downs are that the movie only become exciting after the first 40 minutes or so. The rest was quite boring. Another down (or you could consider it an up if you want) is the excessive nudity. All 4 girls were topless for a few minutes, and all the guys showed their butts for a long time. It's not that I'm against nudity, but this was a horror movie, not 'The Dreamers'.

Unless you're very desperate to watch some guy take off his swimsuit and run around naked for a few minutes, or watch a girl get naked for no reason, or you're a die-hard fan of Debbie Rochon, than this is the movie for you. But if you're looking for a good horror movie, stay away.",Negative "This is one of my all time favorite movies and I would recommend it to anyone. On my list of favorite movies (mental list, mind) the only ones on par with it are movies such as The Lord of the Rings series, Spirited Away and Fly Away Home.

I can really relate to the main character Jess. At the start of the movie she's a shy girl with a slightly odd background who has a lot more friends who are boys than that are girls. She really sucks you into her life. I also certainly can't fault any of the protagonist's acting, or anyone else's in the film.

The soccer was interesting to watch even for someone like me who has no idea of the rules. The movie is never boring. The romance is really cute and didn't make me blush tooooo hard! One thing that really made it though was the Indian factor. Jess' parents are Indian and there are many colourful Indian conventions throughout the film providing a very interesting cultural insight as well as everything else. The Indian people are also hilarious! Essentially this is a coming of age film about choosing the path you want and fighting for it.

Feel good comedies are becoming my favorite movie genre thanks to this film. They're funny, they're refreshing and they make you feel good! ^_~",Positive "Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.

",Negative "I found the writing in this movie absolutely terrible.

The only thing that saved this movie from me rating it as a 1 out of 10 was Lacy Chabert's performance who I thought played the multiple personalities really well. For me she was definitely the highlight of this movie.

Dina Meyer was pretty as always but I found her role pretty bland so I don't think one can say that her acting was great.

As for the male lead, Armand Assante, his interpretation of the role reminded me mainly of doctors in cheese 1980s hospital series.

All of that I could have lived with. However the terrible, terrible, terrible end/solution, the role of the psychic and even the role of psychic were just some of the worst writing I have seen in a long time.",Negative "Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.

Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.

While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06",Negative "Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.

But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.

In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.

And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.

I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.

So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about.",Positive "I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.",Negative "No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.

Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.",Negative "A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it.",Positive "I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really ""get it"" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to ""get"", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like ""exciting"" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.",Positive "This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!",Negative "Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for ""10"" to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself!",Positive "This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.",Negative "This little-appreciated movie is one of my favorites. I can watch it over and over. Dreyfus and Braga are masterful, but Raul Julia steals the show! A tongue-in-cheek, menacingly humorous Gomez Addams, with just the right tone for this irreverent spoof of this oft-told story.

Generally untrumpeted and unappreciated, Moon Over Parador allows you to check out of reality and join the fun going on up on the screen. Two thumbs up!",Positive "This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.

I think the title says it all, ""spirit"". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end.

Enjoy ""Spirit"" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too.",Positive "This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart.",Negative "This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government ""officially"" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner ""seceded"" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show ""Yes Minister""; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well.",Positive "***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.

Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!

Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic ""The Searchers"" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.

The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.

Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.

***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good!",Positive "Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped ""romance"" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.

All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!",Negative "I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel ""Jane Eyre"". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-)",Positive "COME ON!!! They did that on purpose!! Two of my current faves on TV (Meloni from ""Oz"" and ""L and O-SVU"" and Janel from ""West Wing"") hook up for a nice little sleeper/character study. Plot's nothing fancy, but the acting is right on the mark. Tim Busfield shows up for some neat bits. Worth a look.",Positive """La Furia del Hombre Lobo"" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of ""Werewolf Shadow"", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- ""It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all."") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.

First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as ""Waldeman""). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.

The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.

But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, ""La Marca del Hombre-lobo"" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.

This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction.",Negative "This was the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. It was just a compilation of recycled material. People getting hit in the head is not funny. People getting kicked is not funny. After the third time a guy got kicked in the balls not even the youngest audience member was laughing anymore. It just got tired fast.

I went with my younger sister. She actually laughs out loud at King of the Hill but this cinematic masterpiece bored her. I'm not surprised. The story is pretty lame. A midget thief steals a big diamond in what was definitely the easiest heist in Hollywood history. Then he hides out with a family pretending to be a baby. I know it sounds exciting but that's the whole story. Say those two lines over and over for 1.5 hours and you'll get the picture There were predictable jokes galore. I really felt ripped off after seeing this. I wasn't expecting much and I was still disappointed. I wish Keenan would just hire some decent writers to write jokes and/or his next script. This was even worse than White Chicks if that is possible. I've seen high school plays that were better, and cheaper.

There wasn't anything positive about this movie. I don't like my entertainment to be dumbed down.",Negative "A hard to find film which coasts on the still pervasive mythology of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political demon king. Boyle (as Joe) gives a compelling but historically inaccurate portrayal of the Wisconsin Senator, the caricature McCarthy many take as the real one. Meredith, as wily Army lawyer Joseph Welch, who outsmarted McCarthy at the Army hearings in 1954, is very good, as always.

In fact, McCarthy and Cohn were quite right in worrying about the appalling security situation in the Army, and the 1954 Army hearings became enmeshed in the smokescreen used by the Army to deflect the investigation away from their security failings, which the committee were investigating, by counter-charging that McCarthy and Cohn were trying to get favours for their staffer, David Schine, whilst in the service.

The film is self satisfied agenda driven polemic, based in the pervasive myths which have passed for the truth with many people for decades-that the ""red scare"" was essentially phony and McCarthy, HUAC etc were always blasting away at the wrong targets, being no more than lying, career ruining publicity hounds, who were trampling over the constitutional rights of startled innocent liberals, who were accused of being security risks/communists.

People who know little about the matter still feel confident in repeating misinformation on McCarthy and the ""red scare"" to this day-Clooney's Murrow hagiography is an example. The misinformation is pervasive, no wonder people have swallowed it. A recent obit of Budd Schulberg in the serious left wing UK newspaper ""The Guardian"" headlined that the Hollywood writer ""named names"" ""to McCarthy""- perpetuating the lie that McCarthy ""investigated"" Hollywood as head of HUAC-the truth being that McCarthy was never even a member of HUAC and he had little interest in the politics of Hollywood types-his investigations were confined almost exclusively to arms of the US government.

The mythology about the ""red scare"" being baseless is now completely exploded by recently opened Soviet and US government documents, if anything McCarthy and co underestimated the sheer scale of Soviet and fellow traveller infiltration in the US, but decades of public misinformation about this period will be hard to correct.

One day maybe some really brave Hollywood soul will make a movie telling the truth about how many American men and women clandestinely aided the mass murderer Stalin, and worked to impose his vicious system of government on the western world, giving an accurate account maybe of Joe McCarthy's career-but I won't hold my breath. Till then, we have this mythical, drunken lying scoundrel of popular imagination so familiar in the media....""Tail gunner Joe"".",Negative "This is one of the most hateful and cruel movies I've seen in a long time. Sadly I was duped into sticking with it, since Donald Sutherland's presence misleadingly gave it some credibility. [That's the last time that'll happen.]

Lesley Ann Warren's character was annoyingly whiny and as stupid as they come. There were smarter characters than hers who were killed in the film. Thats just one of many things in this movie that made me ask, ""Where is the justice?""

Why is late-night cable so filled with sadistic garbage filled with pathological mayhem? Most of these films seem to have a particular problem with women, and seem to focus on them being terrorized and murdered. This film could have been every bit as suspenseful without being sick and twisted in the process. All it ends up doing is turning the viewer's stomach with its sickness, and insulting the viewer's intelligence.

The cast is misleadingly good. My guess is that they BAGGED Sutherland first, and used him to lure the others like lemmings into this.

I'm kicking myself for wasting time, giving this piece of garbage a chance.",Negative """Foxes"" is one movie I remember for it's portrayal of teenagers in the late 1970's. As I am exactly Jodie Foster's age, I related to this movie. It deals with the frustrations, temptations, relationships & rebellion of youth. The soundtrack is great with inspiring rock eg. ""More Than a Feeling"" by Boston and sad numbers like ""On the Radio"" by Donna Summer. The music of my late teens. Yep, I'll always remember this one, even if it wasn't huge.",Positive "I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film ""The Iron Giant"", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in ""Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"".

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.",Negative "This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make ""Now, Voyager"" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, ""The Gay Sisters"" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!",Positive "I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10.",Negative "Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, ""cinematography"" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...

Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the ""tribe""...that's pretty much it...

Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the ""so-bad-it's-good"" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a ""bonus"" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.",Negative "As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?

Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low...",Positive "Im going to keep this fairly brief as to not spoil anything for you. This movie is awesome. From beginning to end, it is filled with genuine thrills. The fight scenes are fantastic, the chase scenes are enthralling, and it moves at such a pace that it really only felt slow toward the end when things are explained, but that is only because everything that preceded it. Damon shines and really has proved a very solid actor, daring you not to believe him in this role. He is this role. A welcome addition to the series in David Straithrain (hope i spelled that close to right) as a seedy CIA agent out to kill Bourne. This is non stop and will truly leave you on the edge of your seat for most of the way. Some things toward the end are just a smidgeon preposterous, thus negating a 10 rating. The ending is left open for sequels and I sure hope that they consider doing more of these, for none have been bad. Excellent film all in all and a fantastic ending to an amazing trilogy.

P.S. The shaky cam did not hurt any of the action, but I still think we could do without it. The good news is, you only really notice it when people are talking and not so much the action.",Positive "Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.",Negative "Another review likened this troupe to a cross between Monty Python and Twin Peaks, also aptly. Yet another review expounded on the differences between the comedy we enjoy non-critically and black comedy, also well worth consideration.

Watch the whole thing, all three series. At the end, all the characters are tied up and the puzzle pieces fall into place just as well as a Douglas Adams novel. The detail and intricacies are staggering. Thoroughly post-modern. Wickedly funny, and startlingly tragic. Not for kids. Not for those with thin skins or who lack objectivity. Thought-provoking. At once literal, figurative, and surreal in disturbing ways. The blackest comedy I can recall.

And very possibly the most wonderful thing I will ever see.",Positive "Lots of reviews on this page mention that this movie is a little dark for kids. That depends on the kid. This isn't a movie for a 2-6 year old; it's more geared toward the 8 years and older crowd. I saw this movie when I was 10, I absolutely loved it. At the time most animated movies were a little too childish for my tastes. This movie deals with more serious issues, and therefore has a little more emotional impact. In this movie characters can DIE, and be sent to HELL! This gives a little more emotional weight to the scenes where characters are risking their lives. The good guys aren't always perfectly sweet and nice (like other cartoons). They have ""real"" motivations, like revenge, and greed, but also compassion and friendship; shows that things aren't always black and white.

Excellent Movie",Positive "This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.",Positive "Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.

It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW.",Positive "Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.

If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.

Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.

This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.

On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).",Positive """Insignificance"" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-""Don't Look Now"" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like ""Bad Timing"" and ""Cold Heaven"". As the ""Actress"", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like ""Walkabout"" or ""Performance"". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/*****",Positive "you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.",Negative "This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8!",Positive "This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.

If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations.",Negative "This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have

have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe

Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply

disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and ""different"". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.",Negative """The Ladies Man"" suffers a common problem among movies based on ""Saturday Night Live"" skits. And that is, a sketch that usually succeeds in five minutes will not do so well in ninety minutes. Although this movie does have its laughs, like Tim Meadows as Leon Phelps, a sex-maniac straight out of the '70s, and Will Ferrell as a wrestling-obsessed husband cuckolded by Leon. So this movie is funny enough, but it's no ""Wayne's World""!",Positive "There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .

THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war "" Why must we murder one another . Why ? "" This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later

That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question "" The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? "" . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive",Positive "I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people ""relieving themselves"" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and ""picture moments"" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves ""what the heck did we just see?"").

Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.",Negative "I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.

From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.

I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy.",Positive "This movie's full title is ""Waqt: Race Against Time"". That's a race no one can ever win, but you can certainly cut your losing margin by not wasting any of your precious ""waqt"" on this bakvaas. This movie was clumsy and manipulative in a way that made K3G look honest. It strained my credulity too far. It was ridiculously stupid in its storyline, and deserves to be mocked for it.

It's not quite as awful as Baghban or Black, but this movie has nothing to recommend it. Stupid, pointless, with a ridiculously OTT performance by Amitji. The central ""plot"" is another nasty example of the crudely manipulative propaganda that infests so many ""family"" BW films. If my father, who raised me, and who I love dearly, treated me like Big B did Akshay, I'd shoot him myself. To say nothing of the trivialising of terminal illness.",Negative "Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).

Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us!",Negative "A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?

There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery.",Negative "A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic.",Negative "American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the ""important"" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.

In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.

This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.",Negative "This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen! There were people leaving the theatre, others were falling asleep (ok, it was a late night show)... This is a no-sense movie, one of those who can make you never want to see an out of mainstream picture again. I would love to watch the making-off of this movie as I am deeply interested on what goes on the minds of the authors of such garbage. Do they laugh when they create all this ridiculous stuff or do they actually think they're doing something interesting? I wonder... The soundtrack is awful apart from some instrumental stuff that reminds you of a previous Bjork album. Even if you're a fan of Bjork's music, stay home. It's the best thing to do. The little, tiny, pieces of nice music are no reason for you to go out and submit yourself to this torture. God!...",Negative "A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.",Negative "Zombie Nation 2004 R

Hey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.

Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.

This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.

1/10",Negative "Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper still can turn the world on with their smiles. The combined talent of these two wonderful stars make this combination reunion/newstart movie work. Watch it and look forward to hitting sixty! Mary defies the youth oriented society with wit and charm. A touch of drama adds 2000 realism. A TV series follow up would broaden the new characters and give us a chance to occaisionally see Lou Grant, Phyllis, Sue Ann, Murray, and Georgette!",Positive The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see.,Positive "Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?

Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens.

It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.",Negative "Well, what can I say.

""What the Bleep do we Know"" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as ""The Postman"", ""The Dungeon Master"", ""Merlin"", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.

This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.

The first thing that struck me about ""What the Bleep do you Know"" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.

The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the ""writers"" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.

The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an ""explanation"" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a ""paradigm shift"" and ""go down the rabbit hole"". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.

Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.

In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.

I want 2 hours of my life back.

Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:

""What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal."" - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.

""What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection"" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.

[while looking at herself in the mirror] ""I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!"" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.",Negative "Yes, as the other reviewers have already stated, this may not be vintage L&H but it's far from being their worst work as at 20th Century Stupid...I mean Fox. This film certainly has all of the basic ingredients for things to go wrong for the boys. But it's their serious approach and determination that makes them funny. They don't play it for laughs as other comedians might but they take their work and situation quite seriously and that is the essence of their eternal humor. In this film, they are faced with some basic issues that really might be encountered by any one of us today, namely job related stress. First, we would get checked out by a doctor and he would prescribe some much needed rest and perhaps staying by the sea. That's where the surrealness comes in to all of this. L&H always take a most plausible set of circumstances and exaggerate it but never to the point of being incredible, except maybe once in awhile. This makes us laugh because we can relate to their self caused predicaments and attempts at extrication. That's what makes Stan and Ollie universal in their appeal. In this film all those ingredients are presented in a delightfully artful and gracefully slapstick way. Not their best in comparison to their earlier work probably because this was the actual last film they did for Roach because he wanted to mirror the ""big"" studios and go into making features exclusively and also wanted to hurry up and finish their contractual obligation. BIG MISTAKE! They should have all stayed together and continued for maybe five more years. What the world may have missed in their not considering this as an option. Watch, laugh, and enjoy this as their last great performance.",Positive "What a disappointment... admittedly the best of the prequels, but the story is weak, the plot is rushed and the end result is just a collection of set pieces, poorly realised and tacked together amateurishly. There are numerous continuity errors that clash glaringly with the original films, and the emergence of Darth Vader was handled so terribly that what could have been a legendary moment in modern cinema is now instead a cheesy goof that will be ridiculed for many years. I won't complain about the abysmal dialogue, as this is Star Wars... the original three films had style, cult feeling and cracking stories, and the strange dialogue added charm. The prequels were shallow attempts to make more money, and this lack of love shows in spades. Utterly disappointing.",Negative "This Cannon Movie Tale is the worst of the lot, and is positive proof that a five minute fable does not a full-length film make. Poor Sid Caesar as the vain emperor, is made to look so stupid, it's hard to watch him. As the sly tailor, Robert Morse hasn't an ounce of charm. Neither does his hapless nephew (Jason Carter) The ""songs"" are dreadful and only slow what there is of the plot down. The direction is practically nonexistent, and the supporting characters add very little. Lysette Anthony is pretty as the emperor's daughter, but her voice has obviously been dubbed for some reason, a fate shared by many of the minor players. And the film crawls at a snails pace. Hans Christian Andersen must have been turning somersaults in his grave when this appeared. It can honestly be said, at least of this movie tale, it's no surprise that it went straight to video oblivion.",Negative "Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid ""plot,"" really pathetic ""acting,"" and so-so ""special effects.""

Some thirty-something year old ""post-teens"" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!

The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image.

This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to ""act"" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain!",Negative "I can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of ""closure"" over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing.

You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director.",Negative "Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!

Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.

Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.

I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.",Negative "I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.",Negative """House Of Evil"" aka ""Dance Of Death"" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike ""Snake People"" (1971), ""The Incredible Invasion"" (also 1971) and ""The Fear Chamber"" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, ""House Of Evil"" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. ""House Of Evil"" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer ""The Fear Chamber"" and ""House Of Evil"" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.

The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.

I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors ""Snake People"" and ""The Fear Chamber"", the female lead is once again played by Julissa.

Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. ""House Of Evil"" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10",Negative "the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.",Negative "Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONLY thing that makes this movie watchable. The plot is inane and laughable (not comic). The other big name actors seem to be making desperate attempts to give the characters they portray some modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of wet cardboard. Everything about the technical side of this film is either mediocre or just plain awful. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with impunity. The incidental music is cartoonish and destroys any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was way off. The venerable Brando couldn't take focus away from the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called ""David Lynch-esquire"" and ""irreverently funny""... it is neither. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in no way creative. And don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.",Negative "With all of the violence on TV and in the local news, it is refreshing to have a show that has no violence or adult language, yet is still entertaining. My children look forward to watching with us every week. Each of us have a favorite chef and favorite judges. We all enjoy Elton Brown. We enjoy learning about the background of the main ingredient, unique vegetables and seasonings. We play along at home to guess who the winner will be.

It is a great hour of entertainment, as well as informational. Best of all in our hussle, bussle life, it is an hour the family spends together.",Positive "After a big tip of the hat to Spinal Tap, this movie is hilarious. Anyone who grew up watching MTV will love it and if you didn't, rent it anyway,the ""My Peanuts"" and ""A Gangster's life"" videos are worth the three bucks alone.",Positive "Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.",Positive "For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid ""no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies""-dialogs that it's just agonizing.

Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film:

- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.

- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade ""just in time"" moments.

- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation clichés. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are ""man and woman in break-up who still love each other"". Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.

- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word ""resolution"" might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.

Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd.",Negative "While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name ""Harris"" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.

""Evening"" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Ao Entardecer"" (""In the Eventide"")",Positive """Going Berserk"" is actually one of the funniest Candy films I have ever seen, period. Sure, it's kinda low budget, but it's a non-stop comedic tour de force. There are tons of memorable quotes. For instance, when his soon-to-be father-in-law asks him how much he earns, Candy says ""Oh, I pull down anywhere between thirty and...eleven thousand dollars a year, sir."" Oh course, it is Candy's delivery that sells it. Just classic stuff. Eugene Levy also turns in a hilarious performance as a sleazy filmmaker. A clip of his horrible low budget movie ""Kung Fu U"" will have you rolling.

So if you are a Candy fan and want to rediscover a forgotten gem, I can't recommend this movie enough.",Positive "I think I truly love this film . ""Prix de Beaute"" was originally a silent film but later dubbed into French in 1930. Despite having someone else's voice dubbed over hers, this remains a stunning tour de force for Louis Brooks. The fact that her singing voice is dubbed by the legendary Edith Piaf helps to mollify us purists about the dubbing deception.

This is the story of Lulu and we first see her at a resort with her macho boyfriend, Andre (Georges Charlia) and their friend Antonin (Augusto Bandini). Lulu enters the frame as a pair of legs: we see her inside the car changing into her bathing costume. Lulu is very free with showing off her body and this does not sit well with the irksome Andre. When Lulu considers applying for the title of 'Miss Europe' we know that a happy ending is not going to be sitting at the end of Easy Street.

The film seems to focus a lot on men ogling beautiful women. We see plenty of bathing beauties and the reactions of the men staring at them. But at the center of it all is the magnificent Louise Brooks.

If you don't mind watching films from the bygone eras, then consider checking out this one. Louise Brooks is not a name that most average movie buffs may readily know but as soon as you see her you will be mesmerised and you'll want to know more. Also check her out in 'Pandora's Box' if you can find it.

Be wary of the US Kino DVD release. I don't know if their projection speed is correct. A lot of the scenes appear to be shown at too fast a speed. This may have been the way they were shot. I don't know. But since it's the only way to see this film, it's worth swallowing that one minor bitter pill.",Positive "This is a well-made documentary on the exciting world of Indy Car racing. The photography is simply outstanding. The scene were Mario Andretti drives the old racing roadster down the New England street lined with the ancient maples, leaves blown to the side by the speed of the car, is incredible. The film does lose some of its beauty on the small screen but if you like watching cars driven to their limit you should see this film.",Positive "I really enjoyed this movie. The humor was a bit absent at times but I enjoyed how the story moved between dramatic and serious throughout the film. This is the only the second movie where I saw Verdone acting (the other was 'Un sacco bello'), and I can see why Italians find him tiresome, but he think he played his role well as the loving father.

My one drawback with this movie was that I knew it took place in Italy - somewhere in the center or south, I presume, but I felt like there was no representation of a place. This movie could have taken place in New York, Boston, Melbourne, New Dehli...I always think it is important for movies to have a place to give the viewers something to relate to. (Maybe I missed something?) :) If you like Italian films, then I think that you will enjoy this. It's not a Fellini or a Rossellini - it's not realism or neo-realism. It's a comical story with serious moments that could really happen to any of us.",Positive "While I don't agree with Bob's and Tammy's decision to give up baby Jesse, and it's something I'd never do, they were trying to do what was best for the baby. The way this movie is written, you see yourself becoming wrapped up in the story and asking yourself what you really believe, from all different aspects. Patty Duke? Antagonist? Almost unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. But during the movie, she really convinces you that she's psychotic, or at least, that there's something seriously wrong with her. Her character is the meaning of ""emotionally disturbed."" The movie seems to end quickly, leaving things somewhat unresolved. But other than that, this movie is really great. It really makes you think. It's not a movie to watch when you just want to kick back and relax and watch something cute that'll make you laugh. But it is a good movie to see when you want to challenge your own beliefs, see things from others' perspectives, and discover a little something about yourself. Caution: you may even grow while watching this movie! And it's all worth it, in the end.",Positive "Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like ""Laggan"" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. ""Devdas"", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit ""Bollywood"" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words ""defending his Village"" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for ""Bollywood"". All said and done this is one good Movie.",Positive "Going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. So right away you're guessing who will live and who will die. The survivors end up being exactly who you'd expect them to be, so no points for plot twists there.

And if you're not sure if this is a B-movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story, William Devane plays a part: instant B-movie status.

The movie is promising in the beginning. At the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. Oooh, foreboding. The best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. Great special effects. Same thing when they make Bacon invisible.

There are a couple of bare breasts, a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an R-rating that it really didn't need.

For a thriller there weren't really any surprises, except when Shue makes like MacGyver in the freezer, which is more of a 'Whaaaa?' OK, there is one surprise. That's when Caine (Bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. It was a surprise but only because you're yelling at TV, 'Noooo! You're dead already! End the movie!' Speaking of yelling at the TV,that's all I did for the last 25 minutes or so. 'Put on your f#@%ing goggles!' Instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him, they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems...).

The story really lost it at the end. But the special effects were good; that's the only reason I give it a 2/10.",Negative "I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. ""Panaghoy"" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the ""period"" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, ""Panaghoy"" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's ""Oro, Plata, Mata"", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's ""The Color Purple"" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of ""Noli Me Tangere"".",Positive "Personally, I think that the film was done very professionally, I loved the choreography and the acting. The plot is also gripping and mysterious. The film itself is very emotional, and what I liked about it most is that it makes you think afterwards. Antonio Gades has absolutely lived his role to the end, and I must say that it's one of my favourite pictures and Saura is a wonderful director.",Positive "My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.

The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!

The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.

I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.

",Positive "It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.",Negative "Having heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.",Negative "actually... that ""video camera"" effect, is just that, it's an effect, a rather good one.. (u don't know much about directing a film do you?) this film is in fact BETTER than the original, it's great fun to watch, made for TV, doesn't need to follow any rules. I find it hard to watch number 1 because of how he kills the first girl, its disturbing. and all the time we are routing for Judd Nelson to get away with it, we as the viewers are on his side. i hope one day we will see a 3rd cabin by the lake but i doubt it. Watching this film you can understand how real movies are made, as this is sort of like a film within a film. Judd is one of the scariest villains ever, and he's more realistic, he doesn't just mindlessly chop people up like in other horrors.",Positive "I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.",Negative "I sat down to watch this film with much trepidation and little hope. I didn't think it would be possible for this film to live up to its subject matter. But it absolutely did, and then some. First, I must say that Jared Harris did an extraordinary job as John Lennon. At times it seemed that Harris was channeling Lennon. The resemblance was often uncanny, and he clearly studied Lennon's mannerisms and vocal inflections. Aiden Quinn was quite good as McCartney, also bearing a striking resemblance to Macca, although he did occasionally trip over his Scouse accent.

This work of fiction was well-written and well-directed. It was pure fantasy, of course, but sometimes I felt like a voyeur peeking through a keyhole at this reunion. The rooftop scene was especially moving, as McCartney told Lennon what he had never heard as a child--that he was worthy and important, and it could never be his fault that he was abandoned by his parents. I also enjoyed the scene in the park where the pair of them danced with absolute abandon to the reggae band!

My one complaint would be this: I am not so sure that John was as caustic as he was portrayed in the film at this stage in his life. He had settled in to his domestic situation quite nicely, and he was actually known to be quite friendly when approached by fans. Only a few years later, he was very friendly when he was first approached by his assassin for an autograph on the day he was murdered.

Mostly this film served to stir up those feelings again about what might have been had John lived a bit longer. I am quite sure the Beatles would have come back together at some stage. And I am quite certain that Lennon and McCartney would still be friends today.

Well done, VH1. I will watch it again and again.

",Positive "This is a copy of the 1948 Doris Day classic, Romance on the High Seas.

The story line is more or less same but is contemporary. Govinda plays a sharp witted fellow who replaces the husband on the trip. While Rani plays the college friend of the wife who does her the same favour. They ostensibly try to catch each other out while the actual husband and wife tries to trip each other in Bombay.

On the trip, Govinda mistakes another girl for Sanjiv's wife and spies on her while falling in love with the ravishing Rani.

Lever plays a dual role of father and son both lawyers specialising in divorce proceedings. They are pitted against each other for the warring couple.

It is a poor attempt at copying the original classics and the songs are quite appalling. The comedy is slap-stick and will not make one laugh too much.",Negative "I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.

I love films. I loved ""Isle of the Dead"" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked ""Scream"" and ""Scary Movie"" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking ""Where is this going?"" (even near the end) ""Where did they get these awful actors from""? ""Was that supposed to be a joke?"" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps ""make"" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline – much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just ""My GOD."" There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think ""Oooo wasn't that clever"" because it wasn't. In ""Fight Club"" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was ""wild things"" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting – the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a ""Sunset Beach."" - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like ""Hunk"". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen ""American Psycho II"" yet, but no doubt his laid back ""cool"" style has ruined that film also.

I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said ""you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it"" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked ""Mean Girls"" and other generic teen films, and watch ""Beverly Hills 90210"" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is ""Memento"" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.

Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than ""Loch Ness"")

If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.",Negative "I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C)",Positive "I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.",Negative "Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.",Negative "Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off.",Positive "The Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise was a huge deal and not to mention very famous. I loved Honey, I shrunk the Kids when I was little. It was an original story and had such an exciting plot! The sets were so amazing and the cast seemed like they enjoyed each other's company. Now Honey, I blew up the kid was pretty stupid, so I think they wanted to go back to the story that everyone loved.

Basically, Adam is a little more grown up now and the mom's are going on vacation to leave their husbands with their children. But when Wayne's favorite item is threatened for the garbage, he wants to shrink it and keep it, but he and his brother get in the way. But when the wives come back after forgetting to give some meds to their son, they get caught in the machine as well, leaving the kids in the house alone!

The plot is silly, but like I said, it was just a family film that I think some might get a kick out of. The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is the best, I think everyone could agree. The third one wasn't so bad, I would recommend this one at least over Honey, I Blew Up the Kid movie, it was at least a little more fun.

4/10",Negative "In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.

This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.

Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.

Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.

RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world.",Positive "Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:

- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.

- Unconvincing acting.

- Storyline never really caught fire.

The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.

Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.",Negative "Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering…. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah!",Positive "Like watching a neighbor's summer camp home movies, ""Indian Summer"" is a sleep inducing bore. Eight alumni campers are barely introduced, when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. Fine actors, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton are totally wasted in this film. One camper's observation that ""everything seems so much smaller than I remember it"" is repeated at least ten times, enough to make you squirm. The anticipated pranks are neither funny or original, unless you think that short sheeting is a real ""howler"". This movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. ""Indian Summer"" did not make me homesick, just sick. - MERK",Negative """You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive."" Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.",Negative "In an attempt to cash in on the success of Universal's horror films Majestic Pictures hired several popular actors from the current genre and put them in this effort that (realistically speaking) is nowhere near as good. With that, this is still worth everyone's time and it's a heck of a lot of fun to view and in my opinion it's better than most of what is supposed to pass nowadays as horror! Story takes place in the small German town of Klineschloss where the bodies have been piling up completely drained of blood and with suspicious puncture marks. Burgermister Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) shouts ""It's Vampires"" but the local police chief Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) thinks it's a madman who's responsible and he vows to catch him.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** The Burgermeister and most of the towns folk think that the local kook Herman Glieb (Dwight Frye) who loves bats and frequently talks to them is the one they are looking for and they chase him until he falls to his death in a cave. The one who is responsible for the killings is Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who has created a new form of tissue mass that feeds on blood and he accomplishes this by having some sort of mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazer) who goes out at night to collect the blood. Dr. Otto has a pretty assistant named Ruth Bertin (Fay Wray) and an annoying aunt named Gussie (Maude Eburne) but they have no clue what he's up to but Karl eventually become suspicious when one of the murders takes place after Herman's death.

Frank R. Strayer was never confused with being James Whale but he was a pretty competent director who ended up directing most of the ""Blondie"" films in that series and with this film he uses the same sets from ""The Old Dark House"" which was also filmed at Universal. I'm the first to admit that this film is downright clumsy at times but it's practically impossible to resist a film that has a cast like this including Frye who is pretty much doing his Renfield role only this time he befriends bats and strokes them and keeps them in his pocket for safe keeping! One thing that just doesn't make sense is the mind control that Dr. Otto has over Emil as the film never explains this and I had a strong sense that this was some sort of nod to ""The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"" but on the other hand it's probably just the weakest part of the script. There are a few other tidbits that I noticed including the chase of Frye to the big caves which is obviously an early shot of the infamous Bronson Canyon where numerous other films have been made and also Wray's brown hair which is her true color. True horror film fans will appreciate this more than others but I think this is a fun film to view for everyone and with a cast as attractive as this it's well worth a look.",Positive """Atlantis: The Lost Empire"" was everything the previews indicated it would be. It is not often you find that. Most of the time, the previews show only the best parts and then the rest of the movie is terrible. Not so with this one. I was pleased with the original plot, even though the sub-plots were not. The animation was not break through like ""Shrek"" but it was good, none the less. The plot and the story line were well presented and there were only a few slow spots in them. This keeps you interested. I found myself enjoying this one. ""Atlantis"" gets and keeps your attention. You also have to think a little bit, but not too much. Once you think about it a little, you can figure out what needs to happen but you really don't know for sure how it is going to happen.

The casting was also good. Michael J. Fox, as Milo was an excellent choice. His personality fits nicely. The gruff natured Commander Rourke was also well chosen with James Garner. His character reminded me of his performance in ""Maverick"" which I also liked. I really liked the casting of Claudia Christian as Helga Sinclair. Her ability to play a no nonsense personality makes the film more interesting. It's just too bad she is a villain.

Over all, definitely worth you while (8 out of 10).",Positive "Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' ""Greedy""). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation.",Positive "This film, though, critically acclaimed, has of course not yet been released in the U.S. on DVD, like another great - Christine Lahti's ""Housekeeping"", out the same year. But if you can support Region 4 (Australian) DVD's, this little masterpiece should be in your collection. There are still some VHS copies available on the internet as well.Davis is complemented by a great story, as well as memorable performances from her supporting cast, especially Claudia Carvan and the late, great Jan Adele. Amazingly, or maybe not, this film and its stars went unacknowledged at Academy Awards time, as did ""Housekeeping"", but treat yourself to both of them - you will be glad you did!",Positive "If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?",Negative "OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here.",Negative "Nominated for the oscar ""worst script ever"" in my opinion. There's no decent story, rediculous acting, VERY lousy humor. By every means possible, if you have little self respect please don't waste your time seeing this movie. Although u can see the actors CAN act, it leaves you dumber after watching it. Precious braincells are being killed watching this crap...

i warned u

DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE",Negative "It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics.

Duncan""Cisco Kid"" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.

As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.

This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.

-Thunderossa.",Negative "I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.

I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.",Negative "Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - ""So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years.""

The Bank - ""I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?""

Producer - ""Yeah, we got plenty of those.""

The Bank - ""Sounds great, where do we sign?""

Please.",Negative "**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten

***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see

*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece

**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws

** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)

*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments

BOMB = Not of a viewable quality

- Kalifornia = ***

- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)

I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.

Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless ""white trash"" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.

The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.

I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.

I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving ""KALIFORNIA"" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do.",Positive "Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow...""Moonstruck"" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****",Positive "Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend!

Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long ""missionary trip"" to Africa.

Hilarious fun.",Positive "Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie.",Positive "I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!

I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!

Book was so much better!",Negative "Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with ""The Shop Around the Corner"". This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.

Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.

The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.

That is why these films will live forever!",Positive "I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting ""Streetcar Named Desire"" in Elizabethan England.",Negative "All I could think of while watching this movie was B-grade slop. Many have spoken about it's redeeming quality is how this film portrays such a realistic representation of the effects of drugs and an individual and their subsequent spiral into a self perpetuation state of unfortunate events. Yet really, the techniques used (as many have already mentioned) were overused and thus unconvincing and irrelevant to the film as a whole.

As far as the plot is concerned, it was lacklustre, unimaginative, implausible and convoluted. You can read most other reports on this film and they will say pretty much the same as I would.

Granted some of the actors and actresses are attractive but when confronted with such boring action... looks can only carry a film so far. The action is poor and intermittent: a few punches thrown here and there, and a final gunfight towards the end. Nothing really to write home about.

As others have said, 'BAD' movies are great to watch for the very reason that they are 'bad', you revel in that fact. This film, however, is a void. It's nothing.

Furthermore, if one is really in need of an educational movie to scare people away from drug use then I would seriously recommend any number of other movies out there that board such issues in a much more effective way. 'Requiem For A Dream', 'Trainspotting', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and 'Candy' are just a few examples. Though one should also check out some more lighthearted films on the same subject like 'Go' (overall, both serious and funny) and 'Halfbaked'.

On a final note, the one possibly redeeming line in this movie, delivered by Vinnie Jones was stolen from 'Lock, Stock and Two Smokling Barrels'. To think that a bit of that great movie has been tainted by 'Loaded' is vile.

Overall, I strongly suggest that you save you money and your time by NOT seeing this movie.",Negative "Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and ""true"" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- ""success"" career, when his best work was truly done (""saint jack"", ""at long last..."", ""noises off"".",Positive "How Rick Sloane was allowed to make five movies is harder to believe than cold fusion. This film is absolutely criminal. Before watching this movie I thought Manos: Hands of Fate was the worse piece of crap I ever saw, but at least Manos moves so slowly you might fall asleep, thereby rescuing your eyes from the pain it will suffer. The greatest tragedy of this movie is that the old man that keeps the Hobgoblins ""locked"" up makes it to the final scene. The time I spent watching this movie was an absolute waste of my life.",Negative """Sir"" John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;

This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered ""art,"" but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the ""art"" you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.

In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's ""The Tempest"" while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real ""art,"" ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't ""understand"" so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books.",Negative "The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV.",Positive "I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.

Enjoy",Positive "Someday somebody is going to write an essay comparing Paul Naschy's ""Fury of the Wolfman"" to the great Spanish surrealist films, ""L'age D'or"" and ""Un Chien Andelou"". The Naschy film is a masterpiece of delirium from beginning to end. Dali and Bunuel probably loved it, and ate their hearts out seeing someone do with such apparent ease what they had to rack their brains to pull off.

The film lacks cohesive structure even though it does have a plot that moves from A to B to C. Some mishmash about a ""Professor Walterman"" -- his first name, mind you -- who was bitten by a Yeti monster during an expedition to Tibet and hasn't been the same since, which is understandable. One of his jealous colleagues, the insane daughter of the noted Doctor Wolfstein, knows about his condition and reveals that his wife has been cheating on him. But its a setup for a twisted scientific experiment to unleash his inner beast.

""Walterman"" flips out, turns into a werewolf, kills a few people, is electrocuted, dies, is buried, unburied, taken to a castle filled with circus freaks, wired to various machines, zapped with assorted electronic effects, injected with potent elixirs, is chained up, turns into a werewolf, a woman in an evening gown with thigh-high Nazi fetish boots whips him, he escapes, helps the pretty female doctor find her way out of the castle, fends off the circus freaks with a battle axe, eventually turns back into a werewolf, and has to fight to the death against the female werewolf incarnation of his cheating wife. The lady with the Nazi boots shoots him with silver bullets from her Luger pistol, they die together, and the pretty doctor walks off into the morning with the studly reporter, who did nothing. ""Look! What a beautiful day it is!""

""La furia del Hombre Lobo"" was written by Paul Naschy in a hurry. Original director Enrique Eguilez was fired and replaced by José María Zabalza, a drunk who was infamously intoxicated throughout the production. He was often unable to work (though he did find time to instruct his 14 year old nephew to make some alterations to the script) and Naschy ended up directing much of the film uncredited. Zabalza did rally enough to clip some action scenes from one of Naschy's previous movies, ""Mark of the Wolfman"". The scenes were fortunately good enough to use twice even if the costumes were different, and helped pad out the runtime after Zabalza refused to get out of bed to finish the movie. Post production was a nightmare. Nobody knew who was doing the editing, the money ran out, the master print disappeared for a while, and then at a pre-release screening for a film distributor the executive arrived to find Zabalza urinating into the gutter in front of the theater. He was too drunk to find the restroom but at least he made it to the curb.

Yet somehow the film works, if you let it. It keys into those atavistic memories we have about murky castles, vaulted catacombs, chains, whips, gloomy moors. Fans of those sort of things will find it hypnotically watchable even if the story as a whole doesn't make much sense due to the fractured discontinuity of the execution. In one scene its pouring rain and the wolfman howls at the lightning; in the next shot its bone dry and he's howling at the full moon. Then its raining again. And yet you don't look at it as a gaffe. Its like an unfolding dream where contradictions are possible, opposites are the same, and effects proceed causes; First the wolfman picks up the power cable and screams, and then the cable starts sparking with electricity. People say its low budget hurts the overall effectiveness -- I say the film would have been unwatchable if they had a dime more to spend. It is a marvel of making something out of nothing, and succeeds not because of what it could of had, but because of what it does. It's easy to laugh at stuff like this and even easier to dismiss it. The trick is being able to see through the mayhem, or rather to regard the chaos as part of the effect.

Paul Naschy died last week at the age of 75. He had been ill with pancreatic cancer for a year or more, was working on film projects right up until his last days, but passed away in Madrid, Spain, with his family while receiving chemotherapy treatment. His rich, varied, and surprisingly lengthy career is a legacy to a man stubbornly pursuing his artistic vision in the face of universal mainstream disinterest. And yet in all of us there is an eleven year old kid who will watch his movies like ""Fury of the Wolfman"" in rapt awe. Even people who don't like Euro Horror will discover something in this movie to marvel at, if only for just a minute in a couple spots. You can find it for free at Archive.Org or even buy it on a DVD for a nickel. It's worth far, far more.

Amusingly, Naschy was horrified to learn that many others like myself regard this twisted, sick, demented little movie as a classic, if not an outright masterpiece of Cinema Dementia. The problems he encountered during the production and the mess of a film that was left after were perhaps too personal an artistic disappointment for Naschy to forgive. I would never presume to dare to forgive it for him, but I will say this: I'd rather watch ""Fury of the Wolfman"" in its dingiest, most cut and degraded fullscreen public domain print than ever sit though the overbearing, obnoxious crap churning out up at the Swine Flu cineplexes this or any other weekend.

The world lost a great artist this month. Watch his films, and remember.

9/10",Positive "Many people judge it as a fan service film because a lot of super star starring in this movie (Gackt, Hyde, and Wang Lee Hom is very famous singer in Japan). But don't judge it before you watch, is what I say. Gackt and staff are very serious when made this film, and they worked so hard. It's a good film with a touchy story inside. Several scenes can be so fun and some others are so sad. They made it so good until I can't stop watching this all over again.

The story has written pretty well but I admit that their act are little disappointing. This is especially for Hyde because his skill of acting is under from the other and it is weird to hear the way when he speaks with other language except his native language (Japan). But, it's comprehensibility because this is their first time to act in the movie.

I think Gackt trying to show us about how someone can be so weak when they lose the most important person in their life. When Toshi was killed, when Sho asked Kei to turn Yi-Che to being vampire like him because he won't let her die, When Sho's Brother died, Kei Shoot Son die, and the best and beautiful scene is When Sho pass away~ even I told that Hyde's skill is still weird but I give him two thumps up at that scene!!

There's a time where The plot goes too fast like they didn't tell the reason Why Son can join the local mafia and being Sho's enemy because they are a good friend at the past and also Son is Sho's brother in law.

Whatever, I love this movie~ (very much ^^).

This is an action movie with a touching beautiful story.",Positive "Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.

After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with ""why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available"". You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called ""baby"", never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.

At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as ""you cad, you dirty swine"", ""I only kissed you because you begged me"" and ""when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH""!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as ""you're a gentleman in every sense of the word"", ""I don't mind"", and ""Mr. High and Mighty"" were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.

The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's ""sickness"" could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.

Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face (""The Silver Cord"" and ""Blood Money"") but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines ""whilst reading a book off camera"". He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported ""the kid was running away with the picture""!!!

Highly, Highly Recommended.",Positive "Her Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.

Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this ""Lifetime"" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. ""Her Deadly Rival"" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit ""Fatal Attraction"". In ""Rival"", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is ""her deadly rival"" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the ""domestic thriller"" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash.",Positive "I really hate most end of the world movies. They show what jaded Hollywood people think of the rest of the world, and they clearly think we're a bunch of sadistic idiots (or at least that watching sadistic idiots react to things is somehow entertaining). I've been to L.A. many times, I have family that works in show business, and I just want to say that these are the *last* people we should be looking to for a reality check. Some disaster movies at least paint a clever picture: Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, but usually the message is just ""people will do anything to survive, all is dark and sad and purposeless, we should all be ashamed of ourselves"".

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a story that explores throwing off the system of social order and testing people's mettle in the face of horror, and I do believe some people would act like this film portrayed, but sadistic idiots aside, I seriously doubt society would just dissolve into every man for himself, that's just insulting.",Negative "I just did not enjoy this film. But then I loved Babe, a Pig in the City and have been spoiled by talking animal films that are exceptionally well done in every way. The animals were not likeable. They were all irritating especially Chris Rock's guinea pig, but then what could I expect, it's Chris Rock. I believe I smiled once or twice at a couple cute lines, but that's it.",Negative "The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!

summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!",Negative "The action in this movie beats Sunny bhai in Gadar. Akshay Kumar possess the superpowers of Leonidus in 300, Neo in Matrix along with Spiderman and Superman. It is hilarious. Except for the typical Akshay Kumar and Anil Kapoor comedy I cannot see anything positive in this film. The story looks like the writer told his 10yr old son to write. The movie is so unreal that Anil Kapoors long range shooting with a shotgun is the least most mistake by the director. Except for the directors Tashan to make this movie there is no other Tashan. I regret wasting my money on this movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. 1/10 is the least I can give on IMDb or I would give it a zero.",Negative "I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable.

My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of ""actual"" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for ""genuineness"" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.

The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?

The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.",Negative "I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.

While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.

Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.",Negative "I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I saw on the web, I thought Cinderella 2 (as well as 3) is a very cute and funny sequel for everyone - kids and adults...like me, I am 22 years old.

I also find it and very informative film, it shows lessons on being true to yourself and following your heart. I thought it has great animation, and the voice casting was very good; the songs performed by Brooke Allison too. Since this film has been divided into three flashbacks/stories, my favorite out of the three, is the story of when Jaq the mouse, became a human for a day, thanks to Fairy Godmother and her magic.",Positive "I was drawn to this movie the moment I saw a preview of it on Oscar night. When I read about Kay Pollak, I was hooked. We Americans are suckers for a comeback kid.

I understand this movie was a huge draw in Sweden. As a very provincial American I can only speculate on the reason. Perhaps it is because of the provocative joke that the Lena character makes at the beginning of the movie and other social comment but perhaps it is because of the central message which I believe has the same appeal everywhere in affluent societies.

The message of this movie for me is the same as the movie Titanic. Life is short people and as far as anyone really knows it's all we've got. It can be taken away at any time. So isn't it a pity that we spend so much time hiding behind walls separating us from other people because we're so afraid of being hurt? Tearing down the walls is painful but feeling alive lies on the other side of those wretched walls. Feeling alive is worth taking the risk. Give and you will receive. So start living NOW.

Many people are criticizing this movie for it's lack of characterization and other flaws. I say you are all pseudo-sophisticated. Get a grip folks, it's a parable, a fable for we affluent westerners who are materially rich but whose souls are in abject poverty.

So join a choir or a band or help build housing or distribute food for those less fortunate than you. Spread some joy and make the world a better place as long as you get out and commune with your fellow man. Writing a check is not enough. We are a social species by the way. Even the humblest of your fellow human beings can affect you in ways you never thought possible.

Rugged individualism has its place but it is over-rated.",Positive "Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.",Negative "I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like ""Cruel Romance"" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in ""The Insulted and the Injured"" (""Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye""). ""Sibiriada"" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like ""Tango and Cash"" and less forgettable like ""Runaway train"". I would prefer ""Kurochka Ryaba"" to them...",Positive "If one would see a René Clair film with the kind of distracted semi-attention which is the rule in TV watching - one might be better off doing something different.

Watching ""Le Million"" with all attention focused upon what takes place before eyes and ears will reveal a wealth of delightful details which keep this musical comedy going from the beginning to the end with its explosion of joy.

In the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende a journalist once wrote: ""In my younger days I saw a film which made me feel like dancing all the way home from the cinema. This film is on TV tonight - see it!""",Positive "Perfect movies are rare. Even my favorite films tend to have flaws - Rear Window looks a little stagey at times, Chris Elliot's character in Groundhog Day doesn't work, the music score in Best Years of Our Lives is too cheesy, the beginning of Nights of Cabiria is a little too slow - but this film is perfectly executed from start to finish.

The script is brilliant, the acting is superb all around (although Reese Witherspoon and Sam Waterston are amazing, the whole cast shines), the directing and the photography are inspired, and the music score is touching without being intrusive (like some Miramax scores that are too manipulative). Every sad moment is truly moving, every light moment makes me smile. This truly is one of the best films I have ever seen and I wish there were more films like it.

I am glad that Reese Witherspoon has gone on to stardom after this film, but I am sorry to see that her recent movies are so much more escapist and silly than this serious film which is about real people, real feelings and real problems. Brilliant! A must-see.",Positive "Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.

Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this ""B"" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like ""Tess"" and ""Cat People"" behind her... Must have been desperate.

The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do ""German""?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5"" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.

OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his ""Ve haff vays and meance"" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.

This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.",Negative "The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.

Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.

Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.

The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.

I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.",Negative "I love this movie. It's wacky, funny, violent, surreal, played out in a madman's head, and definitely not your usual comedy.

If you don't find the film amusing then I guess it's just not for your tastes, so this is a tough one to write a review for.

For reference, some other comedies I love are The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, and Zoolander (that one only got me the second time around). There are others, but my taste is definitely for the unusual, and I am willing to accept that most people just don't tend to like that kind of thing. I make no apologies for having an unusual sense of humour - at least I have one.

The scenes and characters of this particular movie are well put together, the verbal humour is hilarious, the situations are intriguing, the acting is very good (as you would expect of the cast), though the acting demands made of the cast by the script are not particularly high. The overall package makes for fun, funny, watchable yet violent entertainment.",Positive "I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.

I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 ""star gate"" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized ""R2-D2"".

It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.

The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.

When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.

Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.

On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.

There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.

While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, ""help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!"" instead of just shrieking.

The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.

Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.

Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.

Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.

In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.",Negative "I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - ""50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk"", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as ""I'll be Back"" and ""Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn"". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski.

As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.

Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....

Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as ""Notting Hill"" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........",Negative "A lot of the comments people have made strike me as (sorry) missing the point. Kasdan wants to present life, simply, ordinary life. The conventionally structured story, where characters have insights that change their lives, and then fade out, music up, and the film is over, is absorbed into this much larger canvas. Several characters in this movie have just such illuminations, and then they move on. Sometimes they can hold onto their insights, sometimes they can't, and that's the way life really is. In other words, Kasdan jettisons conventional dramatic structure in favor of an exploration of the the ongoingness of life – there is no happy ending, only an eventual ending; and everything before that is still in process, still always up for grabs – and, if you absolutely insist on a theme, an exploration of the role of the miraculous in our lives. What is a miracle? Well, life itself, for a start. Then add in all the random incidents and cross-connections that make up a life, or several interconnected lives, and you have miracles by the bucketful. Kasdan underscores this theme lightly, rather than insisting on it, and bolsters it in various ways, most memorably by the device, right in the center of the film, of having Mac and his wife, lying in bed, each dreaming their own dreams, but as well showing, later on in the film, how those dreams have the power, within the film, to shape reality. This is not a film with an easy or obvious message. You just have to let it play out in front of you, and then let it sit in your mind for a few days, a month, a few years, and see what it has wrought there. This is, without a doubt, Kasdan's best film, his most mature, his most humane. A major meditation on life from one of our most gifted writers and directors. The tragedy is, of course, that he has not been allowed to work for a number of years now, mostly due to studio constraints around ""Dreamcatcher."" Hopefully we haven't heard the last from Larry Kasdan. A great film from a great artist. Keep in mind that art does not have to rationalize itself completely in order to succeed.",Positive "Why me? Why should I be subjected to such slaughter of what could have made an interesting plot?! At least if I can warn other people off, it will have been worthwhile.

I had to watch this horrible movie for a college course. Otherwise, I would have looked at the synopsis on the back of the thing and steered clear. The movie was slow, had PAINFULLY little character development, and centered around the idea that a creepy little white man can become cool if he hangs out with an LA-style token black man.

If you want to experience the stereotypical LA feeling of dizzying superficiality - watch the movie. Note, though, that this movie does not DEPICT what we have come to think of as an ""LA lifestyle"", it is a wonderful example of the products that ARISE from it.",Negative "This is the story of a young woman seduced and then dumped by her older, married lover after she gets pregnant; she avenges herself against him, and his entire family, through black magic — which, disappointingly, she doesn't do herself but has someone else do for her. Good production values for a Thai horror flick. But the bland script never generates suspense, the director approaches the material entirely conventionally, and the final act loses viewer sympathy for the victims by throwing logic to the winds. At one point, a character has a prime opportunity to simply shoot the villainess dead, and instead she gets up and runs away without picking up the gun. Bad writing — you're soaking in it!

Some icky gore effects, including a really tasteless late-term-fetus corpse and one guy dying from having hundreds of live eels burst out of his stomach. Only recommended for genre completists who simply have to see every horror film produced in Asia in the last 15 years.",Negative "Back in 2004 I saw ""True"", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.

Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.

First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the ""Quais de Seine"" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) ""Quartier de la Madeleine"", and ""14th Arrondisement"" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: ""True"" or ""Faubourg Saint-Denis"" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and ""Quartier Latin"" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.

Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.

Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.

I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.

There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...

What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - ""Quais de Seine"" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and ""Père-Lachaise"" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. ""Tour Eiffel"" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in ""what will this director do with this?"" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.

I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love!",Positive "There's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.

The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a ""Great Gatsby"" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.

The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for ""values"" that never were.",Negative "By now you should already know about this film, the Jessica Simpson ""bomb"" that pretty much went straight to video (limited, anemic theatrical run). Basically, Ms. Simpson's Katie travels from a small town in Oklahoma to visit her boyfriend, to surprise him, only to find him in bed with another woman. She is stranded, but has one friend (Rachel Leigh Cook, whom I wish we saw more often in film), who lets her stay. Katie ends up getting a job via two conniving co-workers (Penelope Ann Miller and the always amusing Andy Dick) who are just using Katie to get the president of the firm (Larry Miller) ousted. This is strictly a b movie, its not meant to be profound. Jessica Simpson is not a great actress by any means, but she is pretty much beautiful and never truly annoying. The film is watchable in that its not an abomination, but its throwaway fluff. In a cameo, Penny Marshall is funny (a subtle in-joke about Milwaukee made me chuckle), and there is a funny scene involving Norwegian priests (don't read too much into this). So, not horrible, but easy to skip. Your safe bet is to watch it on television if it ever does. Again, not good, but not a profound disaster.",Negative "I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!

I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among ""the amazing 5"".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?

It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an ""adaptation"", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???

Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!

You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are ""silly"". Maybe we can ""blame"" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on ""classic"" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all ""murdered"" by Hollywood types who think, ""OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!"" More like they're the ""stupid"" ones. What a waste of potential.

Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB (""teachers"" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the ""amazing 5"" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like ""Ardala Valmar"" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)

Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.",Negative "This movie is SOOOO funny!!! The acting is WONDERFUL, the Ramones are sexy, the jokes are subtle, and the plot is just what every high schooler dreams of doing to his/her school. I absolutely loved the soundtrack as well as the carefully placed cynicism. If you like monty python, You will love this film. This movie is a tad bit ""grease""esk (without all the annoying songs). The songs that are sung are likable; you might even find yourself singing these songs once the movie is through. This musical ranks number two in musicals to me (second next to the blues brothers). But please, do not think of it as a musical per say; seeing as how the songs are so likable, it is hard to tell a carefully choreographed scene is taking place. I think of this movie as more of a comedy with undertones of romance. You will be reminded of what it was like to be a rebellious teenager; needless to say, you will be reminiscing of your old high school days after seeing this film. Highly recommended for both the family (since it is a very youthful but also for adults since there are many jokes that are funnier with age and experience.",Positive "In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...

Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.

Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.

The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.

Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.

Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.

The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.",Negative "Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold ""balls"". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--""You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen"". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some).

Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in ""houses"" run by various ""mothers"" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.

When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was ""Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material"". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together.

Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more ""accepted"" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown?

Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???",Positive "Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy.",Positive "I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.

What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.",Negative "There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.

""Azumi 2"" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple ""hitlist"" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.

####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!#####

Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki ""Remember me from Kill Bill"" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her ""turn"" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.

Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.",Negative "I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.",Negative "The original ""les visiteurs"" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for ""Worst first sequel to a really good film"". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!",Negative "One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.

Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?

Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.",Negative "Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.

The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.",Negative "At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10!",Positive "This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.",Negative "its not as good as the first movie,but its a good solid movie its has good car chase scenes,on the remake of this movie there a story for are hero to drive fast as his trying to rush to the side of his ailing wife,the ending is great just a good fair movie to watch in my opinion,

",Positive "The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.

Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the ""Allied bias"" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.

The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring ""Peace in our time"" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.",Positive "This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like ""Straight Jacket""'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on ""The Tingler,"" and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.",Positive "There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.

Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.

The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.

The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.

As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.

This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie.",Negative "This is just flat out unwatchable. If there's a story in here somewhere, it's so deeply buried beneath the horrid characters and jarring camera work that's it's indiscernible. There's a group of vampire hunters who go around doing their thing, and the vampires they kill have little aliens inside of them. They pop their heads out and talk like Speedy Gonzales. If you can imagine a blood and gore covered alien sock puppet screaming in horror as a cowboy dude zaps it with a cattle prod, well, that's what you get here. These folks are loud, obnoxious, violent, and just extremely annoying. Then there are some anti-human humans, who stand around in their CGI spaceship being so incredibly pompous that it's impossible to take. These folks make Hillary Clinton seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison. They're friends with some vampires, or something...who cares.

Then there's the camera work. Remember how everybody hated the thousand-cuts-a-minute crap from the recent Rolleball remake? The folks who made this movie LOVE that stuff. There's enough of it in here for three really crappy nu-metal videos on MTV.

Nuff said. This thing smells. In comparison, Dracula 3000 is a masterwork.",Negative "Tremendous black--and-white nighttime cinematography, and plenty of it, highlights this supposedly-true life account of a 1950s murder in Kansas in which an entire family was wiped out by two men.

The story was written by Truman Capote, so you get the very Liberal anti-death penalty message at the end of the film, which is ludicrous knowing the facts of this case. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson play the two atheist losers who have twisted outlooks on life and who unnecessarily murder this nice family.

Despite the annoying slant at the end, this is a riveting story from the start and the cinematography makes this even more fascinating. Famed photographer Conrad Hall did a fantastic job on this. It makes me wish more modern-day films were made in black-and-white. See it on DVD.

Blake, Wilson, John Forsythe, Jeff Corey and the entire supporting cast are excellent in here. My third viewing of this film came in early April of 2005, shortly after Blake, in real life, was pronounced innocent in the murder trial of his wife. One can't help but look at Blake and this film differently after that.",Positive "Kids - of whatever age - do not want to know about their parents' sex lives. And grown-up children are often seriously baffled and disconcerted by any evidence that aging parents possess an active libido. Lastly, many moviegoers are very uncomfortable watching a dowdy, frumpy widow who would pass unnoticed almost anywhere discover her aching capacity and need for raw passion with a handsome man half her age.

""The Mother"" is a provocative look at a scarcely filmed reality - a woman who isn't ready to stay home, watch ""the telly,"" and vegetate after her husband of nearly three decades, and a controlling, dominating chap at that, packs it in with a massive heart attack.

May (Anne Reid) and her husband have two children, each dysfunctional in his or her own way. The male son lives with a beautiful wife who may well be driving him to the Bankruptcy Court with her extravagant commercial venture. Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw), is a teacher with aspirations of succeeding as a writer. She's attractive, not pretty, and she seems to have a close relationship with mum - at first.

Back at her house after burying her husband, May determines to not stay there. Rejecting typical widowhood with its legacy of boring days and no adventure, she goes to stay with Paula who has a young son. Paula's boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig), is a ruggedly handsome contractor who seems to be taking an awfully long time to complete an addition to May's son's house. May is quite taken with hard-drinking, coke-sniffing Darren whose treatment of Paula ought to have alerted May that he was, for sure, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Cads.

What follows is a torrid affair between Darren and the besotted and now bubblingly alive (dare I say reborn?) widow. The love scenes are graphic but take second place to amateur artist May's pen and ink sketches of their trysts which then play a role in the enfolding drama (or debacle, take your pick).

The theater in Manhattan was packed for today's early afternoon showing with well over half the audience in the range of May's age. That some were shocked or disturbed to see her disporting herself with erotic abandon in the arms of a much younger man is an understatement.

This blindingly honest look at an older woman's awakened passion after decades of dutifully obeying her husband's desire that she stay at home and raise kids (she also mentions he didn't like her to have friends-what a guy) surfaces a number of issues. While May's dalliance with Darren doesn't constitute incest, there are real psychological dimensions, and issues, with a mother bedding her daughter's lover. And Paula isn't made of the stoutest stuff to begin with. The affair, once disclosed, allows the peeling open of the mother-daughter relationship which, from Paula's viewpoint, left something to be desired. Ms. Bradshaw is excellent in the role of a daughter who wants her mother's support as well as her love-she hasn't been dealt a terrible hand by life but it isn't a bed of roses either.

May is strong in her resolve to both acknowledge her sexuality and expect, indeed demand, a future of happiness. But she is also inescapably vulnerable. She's fishing in uncharted emotional waters. Who controls her relationship with Darren and why are difficult issues for her to understand, much less resolve. In her sixties, she's still a work in progress.

""Something's Gotta Give"" recently showcased mature sexuality but in an amusingly antiseptic way assuring no viewer would be discomfited. After all it's Jack Nicholson and the always beautiful Diane Keaton cavorting in the world of the rich. And to insure that no serious psycho-social issues were explored, Keaton's young girlfriend, Amanda Peet, daughter of Keaton, not only blesses the match but insures that the audience knows she and her old(er) would-be lover never hopped into the sack.

No easy out here. Anne Reid's inspired performance forces discomfort on some while drawing respect from others. Her naked body bursts with sexuality for some and appears absurd as an object of physical attraction to others (the comments of audience members leaving today reflected all these views).

Kudos to director Roger Michell for tackling a fascinating story with verve and empathy.

9/10.",Positive "Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages.",Positive "Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.

But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!

Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!

1 out of 10",Negative "A lot of people hated this movie, but that I blame on two facts - 1 - They want it to be too much like the first couple of American Pie movies. and 2 - they are trying to take it too seriously.

This one I found was the best one out of all six, and I absolutely love Dwight. The plot is predictable, I'll say that, but then what teen comedy ISN'T? Road Trip, Dirty Deeds etc etc, they are all incredibly predictable, but still goddamn funny! I say this is worth watching, I love it, I find it hilarious. Just don't watch it while comparing it to the first ones because it's nothing alike.

After watching Naked Mile and this one, it became obvious that all the American Pie movies were about, and only about, the Stiflers. Which is FINE by me.

Watch. Enjoy. Love. xD",Positive "Before Tuscan Sky, I saw Diane Lane's tender performance in this otherwise lark of a movie. Campers are invited to the camp of their youth and experience it as adults. Each of those that return seem to be looking for something they lost, which makes it so realistic. Maybe you had to be a camper to really get it, but in the words of one character noticing all her clothes were wet ""this is so camp!"" From the practical jokes and fighting over boyfriends, to the scary lunch lady and the early morning bell ... it's amp. Once exciting activities now seem mundane. A terrific ensemble cast makes the best of one-two dimensional roles and makes them believable. Bill Paxton, Diane, Elizabeth, Mrs. Brad Paisley (probably when he first fell for her!!) The beautiful scenery, bright colors, comical music (including variations of Hello Muddah)and a comic acting turn by noted director Sam Raimi makes this a movie you can pull out again and again like looking up an old friend.",Positive "The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it.",Negative "Excellent Warner Bros effort starring Errol Flynn in one of his best screen performances. It's often cited as his best, and I can't really judge fully until I have seen his ""Dawn Patrol"". However, his work in ""They Died With Their Boots On"" takes some beating. I'm a big Flynn fan (he's my favourite actor after James Mason--it also helps that he's an Aussie) and I think he's just marvellous, a great screen presence and also a great actor. He is the centrepiece of ""Gentleman Jim"" as the legendary boxer with the fancy footwork, but he is also backed up by a literate, warm and funny script, and Raoul Walsh's direction. Every Walsh film I have seen never loses a beat of it's pace, he truly was a born film-maker. Walsh directs the ring scenes beautifully, as he does with the lighter moments and that poignant, great final scene between Ward Bord and Flynn. Add to that great production values (the ""Gay Nineties"" never looked better!) and a lovely supporting cast and it's pretty much perfect entertainment. Alan Hale usually played Flynn's sidekick, but here is his father, and it still all works. Alexis Smith is Flynn's love interest. The pair are head over heels in love with fighting with each other.",Positive "It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!",Negative "Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a ""friend""...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they ""truly believe they can walk on water"" enough to take that guidance to it's ""logical"" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong ""1"" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.",Negative "I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the ""hype"" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of ""mostly true"" fiction is the way things really were there.",Negative "I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of ""romance"" and ""western"" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.

Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.

I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.",Negative "The cast really helps make this a pleasant surprise and a cut above the normal man-vs.-woman-argue-all-the-time-but-wind up-in love-type of Hollywood screwball romance/comedy.

I usually don't go for those type of films and that tiresome storyline but this one was refreshing, fun to watch, and oozes with charm.

Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other well and make a very handsome couple. The supporting cast is outstanding - from the always-likable Felix Bressart to the villain Joseph Schildkraut.

Frank Morgan also plays one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen him do in his career. He takes the film and turns it around into a whole different mood for awhile when something dramatic happens to him. That ""twist"" is another reason this film rises above others of its kind.

Once again, when a film has a good mix of categories, it usually succeeds. This is a great example of that. In this movie, it's romance, comedy and drama and it's well done. I'll take this over the re-make ""You've Got Mail,"" any day. No comparison.",Positive "Bogmeister and others have pretty much nailed this. Shore Leave is really TOS' first attempt at lightweight sci-fi (which they would later perfect with the classic Trouble with Tribbles). It gave both the crew of the Enterprise and its TV viewers a needed respite from the universe threatening consequences of, for example, The Corbomite Manouever.

Looking for a place to chill out for a while, the Enterprise happens across a seemingly idyllic M Class planet, and sends an exploratory team down to take a closer look. Soon enough all kinds of absurdities begin to take place - some seemingly perilous - but it all seems a morass of human emotional extremities played out in a weird blend of fantastic mystery (McCoy has gone through the looking glass), psychological thriller (Kirk is stalked by an indefatigable bully from his past), and romantic comedy (no comment).

TOS was the least serialized of all of the series in the Trek franchise, so it is easy to forget how many episodes in the first season focused on heavy-handed, potentially calamitous drama. Unlike later series franchise writers, TOS' production team was not afraid to literally go where no TV series had gone before. And Shore Leave, despite its occasional problems, is an example. My only criticism of this episode is that the cast (particularly Shatner - ironic given his legendary sense of humor) didn't seem to know how to handle this new wrinkle on ST's themes. The last scene is possibly one of the worst scenes I can remember from the entire TOS run - both compositionally and in terms of acting.

'nuff said. My recommendation - see it while watching the entire first season as it was meant to be seen - it order.",Positive "Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher.",Positive "What a good film! Made Men is a great action movie with lots of twists and turns. James Belushi is very good as an ex hood who has stolen 12 million from the boss who has to fend of the gangsters , hillbillies his wife and the local sheriff( Timothy Dalton).you wont be disappointed, jump on board and enjoy the ride. 8 out of 10",Positive "If asked how I would define the word "" Shallow "" I would reply "" Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production "" . If asked how I would define the phrase "" Wasted potential "" I would reply "" Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production "" . Bruckheimer productions are nearly always sure fire hits at the box office but nearly always receive critical pannings from the critics . Off the top of my head I can only think of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN getting a lot of critical acclaim .

CRIMSON TIDE too received some begrudging acclaim from critics , it`s certainly one of Bruckheimer`s better films which alas isn`t saying much . The problem I had is the scenario that sets up the story : The Russians are fighting the Chechens and the conflict spreads through the whole of Russia leading to an ultra nationalist Russian to take over a nuclear missile base and threaten the West if they interfere . Maybe the ending of the cold war had everything to do with it but I found this set up very unconvincing . It`s not helped by some errors in geography like the French carrier Foch being in the Med ( Wouldn`t the Foch be better positioned in the black sea ? ) or that the expositional newsreel consists of familar footage featuring conflicts from the Balkans , the first gulf war and even Vietnam . Once again the adjective "" Very unconvincing "" crept into my mind . The story does improve somewhat when the story proper - A battle of wills concerning orders between a nuclear submarine commander and his number two - gets underway . Director Tony Scott does his best as do the cast , but the problem still lies in an unconvincing scenario . The worst thing is that if this had been made in the mid 1980s when WW3 was a real possibility - Nay probability - this film would have terrified me , but after the cold war ended so had the dangers of nuclear war which means CRIMSON TIDE has little impact .",Negative "This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the ""Geeks"" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? ""We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster."" See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy",Positive "Ridiculous-looking little boogers that spawn foam and reproduce themselves. So far for the horror-elements this movie has. All the rest of MUNCHIES plays out like a really retarded comedy that's so stupid you won't find it funny anymore after about 15 minutes. I can imagine little kids cheering for these little boogers, but adults will be left with only those supposedly ""smart"" references translating to on-screen stuff like Capt. Kirk's log entries from STAR TREK, the most well-known scene from E.T., a blatant statement from the filmmakers going ""Look! We're cashing in on GREMLINS' success here!"" and a cardboard cut-out of Clint Eastwood telling us... what about his western movies exactly? That last one was totally lost on me... Oh yes, and chemical waste disposal in caves seems to be a bad thing. Don't know where they got that idea from.

Not to say that MUNCHIES is the most insufferable film to sit through, for that matter. It's just really, really dumb. And if you manage to crack a smile while watching it, you'll probably feel as dumb yourself for having done that after the film's finished.

Good Badness? Yes, but only if ""dumb"", ""retarded"" & ""ridiculous"" are criteria you're looking for. 3/10 and, well, uhm, 6/10.",Negative "First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.",Negative "This movie reminded me that some old Black & White movies are definitely worth the look.

Initially I had some reservations, however from the beginning of the movie until the end I was captivated. I was VERY impressed with the mixture of drama, suspense & comedy.

Arthur Askey (Tommy Gander) is HILARIOUS and had me in stitches the whole time.

Definitely add this movie to your movie-night for some light relief from the sometimes depressing and ""too"" powerful or overly ""funny"" movies of today.",Positive "An excellent series, masterfully acted and directed, but unloved (I am told) by Mr Deighton and withdrawn by him after a single presentation. It is now only viewable in private collections, and via the British Film Institute at special request. Very unfortunate, as Ian Holm's nuanced portrayal of the weary-but-determined Bernard Samson is superb; one of his very best performances. The supporting cast, including the young Amanda Donohoe and Hugh Fraser, are superb. With Mel Martin playing the conflicted and traitorous wife, and Michael Degen as the mercurial Werner, the story positively simmers with the tragic and fateful personal consequences of the great game.",Positive "Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know!",Positive "This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.",Negative "This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.",Negative "Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.",Negative "Another trashy Grade Z quickie from the prolific Albert Pyun. Tim Thomerson´s 13 inch Clint Eastwood-like cop from outer space chases an ugly flying head(!) to Earth and gets involved in a gang war in South Bronx! Mercifully short, but deadeningly dull, with the cheesiest effects since Attack of the 50Ft Woman. They should have fired the continuity guy, too: Note how Thomerson´s sunglasses disappears and reappears in every second shot. Laughably bad, but that´s why we watch these movies, ain´t it? Sequel ´Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys´ is reportedly even worse, if that´s possible.

0 (of ****)

",Negative "Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.",Negative "Having borrowed this movie from the local library a couple of weeks ago intending to originally see this on or a few days after Memorial Day, I finally got to seeing Sayonara just this morning. In this one Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd ""Ace"" Gruver, a General's son who's been raised a certain way, being transfered from Korea to Japan where his girlfriend Eileen Webster (Patricia Owens) conveniently happens to be. Before leaving, he tries to persuade one of his men, a Joe Kelly (Red Buttons), out of marrying Japanese woman Katsumi (Miyoshi Umeki) since that's a violation of military fraternization laws. With the romance of him and Eileen on the outs, however, Ace not only becomes the best man at Joe and Katsumi's wedding, he falls for an Asian himself after he and Captain Mike Bailey (James Garner) go out on the town and watch headlining entertainer Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) on stage. Bailey himself is dating one of the dancers, Fumiko-San (Reiko Kuba). Eileen herself seems to have a fancy for one of the Kabuki performers, Nakamura (Ricardo Montalban). I'll stop right there and say that this was a mostly compelling drama about the prejudices concerning American-Asian relations of romance that was very touching from beginning to end. Even seeing Hispanic Montalban playing an Oriental isn't too embarrassing (though it's a good thing his part is short). And there's some nice touches of humor like that of Brando's head hitting the top of Button's and Umeki's inside doorway more than once. Red and Miyoshi themselves deserve their Oscars especially Red with his defiant and proud emotions throughout. Rookie Garner, before being cast in his legendary role on TV's ""Marverick"", is fine in his scenes with Brando and Miiko Taka shows great restraint in her initial characterization as an anti-American. While I've read there were some changes from James Michener's novel, I can't imagine director Josha Logan, who had previously adopted another Michener work into the Broadway musical ""South Pacific"" and would eventually make that into a movie as well, not staying true to the original source. He certainly provided some inspiration with the ending scenes that made the heartbreaking earlier tragedy in the film a somewhat necessary plot twist. Some of the production numbers may have made the movie a little longish but otherwise, Sayonara was wonderful educational experience about the '50s mores that permeated America and Japan at the time.",Positive I just picked up the DVD release of this movie while on holiday in Norway where it has been released with English subtitles.

The film is beautifully photographed and powerfully acted. The youngster portraying 'Frits' the lead character has an astonishingly open face which mirrors with painful accuracy the tragic events which unfold around him.

Early on in the film we see that the father whom Frits loves so much has mental health problems and this is brought up when the brutal headmaster denies assaulting the boy and suggests it was his own father.

The climactic scene where Frits refuses to show any respect to the headmaster; simply standing his ground and repeating 'Liar' as he is brutally assaulted in front of his classmates is a scene you are not likely to forget.

The films only weak point is the rather clichéd 'Flower Power' teacher who uses every 'friendly teacher' trick in the book. Other than this I feel sure that this is a film you will really enjoy.,Positive "Apart from having the longest reign in British history (63 years), Queen Victoria also holds two other distinctions. She was, apart from our current Queen, the oldest ever British monarch, living to the age of 81. And she was also the youngest ever British (as opposed to English or Scottish) monarch, coming to the throne as a girl of eighteen. And yet whenever television or the cinema make a programme or film about her, they seem far more interested in the older Victoria than they do in the young girl; the version of Victoria with which modern audiences will probably be most familiar is Judi Dench in ""Mrs Brown"". ""The Young Victoria"" tries to redress the balance by showing us the events surrounding her accession and the early years of her reign. It has the rare distinction of being produced by a former Royal, Sarah Duchess of York, whose daughter Princess Beatrice makes a brief appearance as an extra.

There are three main strands to the plot. The first concerns the intrigues of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, a highly unpopular figure even with her own daughter, largely because of the influence of her adviser Sir John Conroy, who was widely rumoured to be her lover. (According to one unfounded rumour he, and not the late Duke of Kent, was Victoria's natural father). The second strand concerns the growing romance between Victoria and her German cousin Prince Albert, and the attempts of King Leopold of Belgium, who was uncle to both of them, to influence this romance. (Leopold's hope was to increase the prestige of the House of Saxe-Coburg, to which both he and Albert belonged). The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.

Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party. Their leader Robert Peel is shown as statesmanlike and dignified, whereas Melbourne, for all his dash and charm, is shown as devious and uninterested in social reform. There may be some truth is these characterisations, but Fellowes glosses over the fact that only a few years earlier the Tories had opposed the Reform Act, which ended the corrupt electoral system of rotten boroughs, and that they had benefited from William IV's unconstitutional dismissal of a Whig administration.

Lessons in dynastic and constitutional history do not always transfer well to the cinema screen, and this one contains its share of inaccuracies. Prince Albert, for example, was not injured in Edward Oxford's attempt on Victoria's life, and Melbourne (in his late fifties at the time of Victoria's accession) was not as youthful as he is portrayed here by Paul Bettany. King William IV certainly disliked the Duchess of Kent (who was his sister-in-law), but I doubt if he would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at her during a state banquet, as he is shown doing here. I also failed to understand the significance of the scene in which the Duchess and Conroy try to force Victoria to sign a ""Regency Order""; the Duchess's constitutional position was made clear by the Regency Act 1830, which provided that she would become Regent if her daughter was still under eighteen at the time of her accession. No piece of paper signed by Victoria could have altered the provisions of the Act.

There are also occasional infelicities. In one early scene we see Victoria and Albert playing chess while comparing themselves to pawns being moved around a chessboard, a metaphor so hackneyed that the whole scene should have come complete with a ""Danger! Major cliché ahead!"" warning. Yet in spite of scenes like this, I came to enjoy the film. There were some good performances, especially from Miranda Richardson as the scheming Duchess and Mark Strong as the obnoxious Conroy. It is visually very attractive, being shot in sumptuous style we have come to associate with British historical drama. Jim Broadbent gives an amusing turn as King William, although he does occasionally succumb to the temptation of going over the top. (Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in ""Moulin Rouge"").

The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert. Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman. Her love for Albert, and their happy family life together, was one of the main reasons why the monarchy succeeded in reestablishing itself in the affections of the British people. (With the exception of George III, Victoria's Hanoverian ancestors had been notoriously lacking in the matrimonial virtues). Blunt and Friend make ""The Young Victoria"" a touching romance and a gripping human drama as well as an exploration of a key period in British history. 8/10",Positive "A May day 1938 when happen a huge rally celebrating Hitler's visit to Rome serves as the backdrop for a love story between Antoniette(Sophia Loren)married to fascist(John Vernon) and Gabriel(Marcello Mastroianni). She's a boring housewife with several sons and he's a unhappy, solitary homosexual fired from radio and pursued by the fascists. She's left alone in her home when her spouse must to attend the historical celebration. Then both develop a very enjoyable relationship in spite of their differences. The film is set on the historic meeting Fuher Hitler and Duce Mussolini along with others authorities as Count Ciano and King Victor Manuel III, describing the events by a radio-voice in off which sometimes is irritating.

It's a romantic drama carried out with sense and sensibility. An unrelentingly passionate romance between two conflicting characters. Magnificent performances from two pros make a splendid movie well worth seeing. Of course Ruggero Macarri and Ettore Scola's sensible screenplay results in ever interesting, elaborate and sentimental. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Pascualino De Santis. Emotive musical score by Armando Trovajoly with sensitive leitmotif. The film won deservedly Golden Globes 1978 to best Foreign Film.

Director Scola's imagination stretches to light up the limited scenarios where are developing the drama. Usually his films take place on a few stages and are semi-theatrical. For example : ¨Le Bal¨(1982) uses a French dance-hall to illustrate the changes in society 2)¨Nuit of Varennes(1983) a stagecoach is the scenario where meet an unlikely group as Thomas Paine, Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette who fled from revolutionary Paris 3) ¨The family¨(1987)all take place in the family's grand old Roman flat; and of course 4)¨Una Giornata Particulare¨ or ¨A special day¨ where Loren and Mastroianni strikes up a marvelous relationship into their respective apartments and at the flat roof.",Positive "I had read an article about Dan Jansen's Olympic and personal journey before seeing this movie. I'm always intrigued by a story of hope and overcoming life altering events, and this was no exception.

The background of the characters that is provided gives you a sense of the family's closeness and how they positively affected each others' lives. I can't speak to the accuracy of specific details in this movie, it is customary to take some creative license when organizing a script. However, the spirit of Dan and his family is what matters here.

Its a worthwhile movie of a story that should be told. I felt empathy for the characters and cheered at the end.",Positive "I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.

But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.

Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about ""we don't leave anybody behind"". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.

And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.",Positive "OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies.",Positive "It's very funny. It has a great cast who each give great performances. Especially Sally Field and Kevin Kline. It's a well written screenplay by Andrew Bergman (Honeymoon In Vegas). I don't like soap operas, even though I never watch them. But I do love this film because it's so crazy and off the wall, that it beats the hell out of any stupid soap that they have on daytime television. In my opinion, it's the best film of 1991.",Positive "What a strangely wonderful, if sometimes slight and bulky, big-budget fantasy this is. Takashi Miike had already proved, by the time he got to The Great Yokhai War, that he could dip into other films aside from his supposed niche of the crime/yakuza genre (Visitor Q and Andromedia showed this, the former great the latter lesser). But here Miike, in his first and only co-screen writing credit no less, proves that he can deliver the goods on a post-modern soup of mythical fantasy conventions, and with it boatload of CGI, creature-effects and make-up, and an epic battle that is more like a ""festival"" than something out of Lord of the Rings. The comparisons can be made far and wide, to be sure, and the most obvious to jump on would be Miyazaki, for the seemingly unique mixture of kids-as-big-heroes, power-hungry sorcerers looking for the energy of the earth as the main source, machinery as the greatest evil, and many bizarrely defined, flamboyantly designed creatures (or Yokai of the title). But there can also be comparisons made to Star Wars, especially to the Gungan battle in TPM, and to the whole power-play between good and evil with similar forces. Or to anime like Samurai 7. Or, of course, to Henson's films. And through all of these comparisons, and even through the flaws or over-reaching moments, it's Miike all the way with the sensibilities of effects and characters.

Here, Ryunosuke Kamiki plays Tadashi, the prototypical kid who starts out sort of gullible and sensitive to things in the world, but will become the hero in a world going into darkness. The darkness is from an evil sorcerer, who gets his energy from all of the rage and wretched vibes in the human world, and who is also starting to put to death the spirits and other creatures, the Yokhai, into a fire that sends them into gigantic robots that have only one mission- to destroy and kill anything in their paths. Tadashi gets as pumped up to fight Sato the sorcerer as the Yokai once Sato's main minion and cohort, Agi (Kill Bill's Chiaki Kuriyama, another great villainies) steals Tadashi's little furry companion, a Sunekosuri. Soon, things come to a head, in a climax that brings to mind many other fantasy films and stories, but can only be contained, up to a point, by Miike and his crew. I would probably recommend The Great Yokai War for kids, but in the forward note that it's not some watered down fantasy in American circles. This has creatures galore, including a one-eyed umbrella stand, and a walking, talking wall, not to mention a turtle, a fire serpent, and a woman who became cursed by Sato. So the variety is on high on that end, and one might almost feel like the creatures and effects- which grows to unfathomable heights when the ""festival"" hits with the Yokai reaching hundreds of miles in scope. But there's also a sense of fantasy being strong in both the light and the dark, and Sunekosuri becomes perhaps the greatest emotional tool at Miike's disposal (and not just because it's cuteness squared); where else to get an audience riled up than over a little furry ball of fury, who ends up in a tragic battle with Tadashi in robot form?

Yet through all of this, the sense of anarchy that can be found in the brightest spots of Miike's career is here as well, which distinguishes it from its animated, Muppet and sci-fi counterparts. There's the bizarre humor as usual, including a song dedicated to Akuzi beans at a crucial moment in the climax, and more than a few flights of fancy with the creatures and fight scenes (I loved, for example, the guy with the big blue head who has to make it smaller, or the anxious turtle-Yokai). The biggest danger with Miike's access to bigger special effects and computer wizardry, which he flirts with, is overkill on this end. He's got everything down, I'm sure, with storyboards, and he creates some memorable impressions with some compositions (one of them is when all is said and done, and Tadashi and the 'other' human character are in the middle of the Tokyo rubble in an overhead shot), but the CGI is sometimes a little unconvincing with the robots, and the interplay skirts on being TOO flamboyant, and some visuals, like the overlay of the Yokai spreading the word about the big festival on the map, just seem weak and pat. I almost wondered if Miike might dip into (bad) Spy Kids territory, quite frankly.

But this liability aside, The Great Yokai War provides more than a share of excitement, goofy thrills, and innocent melodrama that came with many of the best childhood fantasies. It owes a lot to cinema, as well as traditional Japanese folklore, but the screws are always turning even in its most ludicrous and veeringly confusing beats. It's not the filmmaker at his very best, but working in experimentation in a commercial medium ends up working to his advantage. It's got a neat little message, and lots of cool adventure. 7.5/10",Positive "I don't understand the positive comments made about this film. It is cheap and nasty on all levels and I cannot understand how it ever got made.

Cartoon characters abound - Sue's foul-mouthed, alcoholic, layabout, Irish father being a prime example. None of the characters are remotely sympathetic - except, briefly, for Sue's Asian boyfriend but even he then turns out to be capable of domestic violence! As desperately unattractive as they both are, I've no idea why either Rita and/or Sue would throw themselves at a consummate creep like Bob - but given that they do, why should I be expected to care what happens to them? So many reviews keep carping on about how ""realistic"" it is. If that is true, it is a sad reflection on society but no reason to put it on film.

I didn't like the film at all.",Negative "This film was excellent - the emotional power of Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta's performances brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart - this film shows us that there is still hope in the world. If this film had come out at the end of 1988, instead of Rain Man, Hulce would certainly have been at least nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Definitely a must-see!",Positive "Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded ""Eye for an Eye"" and ""Death Wish 2"".

But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being?",Negative Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair.

Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.

My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash.,Positive "Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why ""What's New Scooby Doo"" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in ""A Pup Named Scooby Doo"" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original ""Scooby Doo Where Are You"".

The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think ""Scooby Doo"" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of ""Mystery Inc"" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.

This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as ""danger prone"". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.

Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic ""Scooby Doo"" formula that should never be messed with.

As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.",Negative "it's a very nice movie and i would definitely recommend it to everyone. but there are 2 minus points: - the level of the stories has a large spectrum. some of the scenes are very great and some are just boring. - a lot of stories are not self-contained (if you compare to f.e. coffee and cigarettes, where each story has a point, a message, a punchline or however you wanna call it) but well, most stories are really good, some are great and overall it's one of the best movies this year for sure!

annoying, that i have to fill 10 lines at minimum, i haven't got more to say and i don't want to start analyzing the single sequences...

well, i think that's it!",Positive "The cars in this movie are awesome. The acting in this movie is awful. The plot and driving scenes don't make much sense and are equally bad. If you get really bothered by movies where someone shifts and suddenly goes ridiculously faster, save yourself the trouble and money. Good movie for racing fans? Well, there is a part where they make the mistake of referring to a NASCAR driver as a rally car driver. If you can't tell the difference, go watch it, you'll have a blast. It really comes down to this, there are really really really nice cars in this movie, they are driven horribly and are completely unrealistic. The acting is horrible mainly because of the extremely bad plot. If you want to see hot girls, turn on mtv or vh1 instead. I am disappointed that such nice cars would be represented in such a bad movie. If the class of the cars were to match that of the movie, they should be racing with rusted bicycles.",Negative "Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of ""naughty"" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the ""naughty"" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's ""naughty"" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments.",Negative "... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.

Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this.",Positive "This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.",Negative "I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo ""killing fields"" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot.",Positive "An Insomniac's Nightmare is the story of a man's plunge into insanity. Having chronic Insomnia, Jack is plagued by hallucinations; causing him to try and determine what is real and what isn't.

We find out interesting things about Jack near the end, and think that by the time the movie is over we will have a ""happily ever after"" Hollywood ending. Wrong. This is New York City, the place where nobody sleeps.

Tess Nanavati (Writer and Director) has herself a good film in 'An Insomniac's Nightmare'. A talented filmmaker and writer (she made this film right after her High School Graduation), she has real potential and will be one to watch in the upcoming future.

As I watched this short film I was constantly uncomfortable; between the music, bleak scenery, and realistic portrayal of an insomniac by Dominic Monaghan (as Jack), I desperately wanted to turn this off at times just to escape from it.",Positive "I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.

Well directed, well acted and a good story.",Positive "Most of the comments have been positive but I would like to add that viewers should also focus on the sets. The set designer used a lot of beautiful art deco treatments along with beautiful buildings, stairs, doors, furniture and so forth. It is worth paying attention to. The movie is driven by characterization and symbolism which is very rich. All the gangster actors were cast - it was like seeing old friends and it was a treat. The dialog was amusing at times but stilted at times and I suppose it was meant to be that way. This is a film buff's film. It was made by people, for people who love the medium. Don't miss this one.",Positive "I have no idea why this flick is getting such a bad rap by so many IMDb users (Some are saying it's his 'worst movie ever.' What?? Haven't any of you seen Cradle 2 The Grave?) My favorite criticism is that the plot is totally stupid, and just an excuse to hang all of the action sequences on. Duh! What the crap were you expecting from a Jet Li movie? Did you honestly believe that someone thought up the story, then just loaded it up with action? Of course not! Black Mask is awesome, wall-to-wall action throughout nearly it's entire running time. It's also deliciously gruesome, and we get plenty of severed limbs, decapitations, and creative ways of watching the bad guys (and quite a few innocent people, too!) get slaughtered. Most of Li's other martial arts films are nursery-school when compared to Black Mask; there is no holding back on the gratuitous violence, bloodshed, or action sequences whatsoever! And that made me a happy camper. Again: if you go into a Jet Li movie expecting magnificent dialog and an intriguing plot, you are going for the wrong reasons. Black Mask is probably my favorite of his movies (though, beware of the horrendous dubbing).",Positive I hope she can keep acting and directing. She's surely up to the task and could easily develop that visionary streak into a long career of unconventional and rare works of art. Her work has a rare kind of generosity and her timing is spot-on! Oy I'm kvell,Positive "Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10",Negative "This is an awesome classic monster flick from the 50's! I just love the look of the 50's in general like the cars and the music. Anyway, I love the way the blob looks. I love when the everyone is at the late night horror flick at the theater and the blob comes in and crashes the party. Another thing I love about it is that it takes place all in one night, just like Halloween II.

When Steve and Jane are making out, they see a meteor fall from space. Inside the meteor is the blob. Whenever the blob consumes a person, it grows bigger and bigger. They try to convince the people of the town about the blobby monster, but no one believes them until later. Can anything stop this blobby creature? I highly recommend THE BLOB!!!",Positive "While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!",Negative "Intelligent, wry, and thrilling, ""The Invisible Man"" stood out in 2000 among Sci-Fi's usual lineup, balancing out ""Farscape""'s fantastical art direction and sometimes melodramatic script with gritty, cynical plots and modern noir dialogue. The show sat between ""Law and Order"" and ""Doctor Who"" on the believability meter, but there was no denying the fact that ""I-Man""'s characters went beyond caricature. Even characters that verged on predictability like the Keeper, the Official, and Eberts were given reprieves from the formulaic. Paul Ben-Victor and Vincent Ventresca had a chemistry that evolved and shifted elegantly, made even more remarkable by the revolving door team of writers and directors. The effects are never allowed to overwhelm the plot, and the science only sometimes verged on the totally unbelievable. The show's low points are still entertaining, and I've never seen such taut pilot episodes. Matt Greenberg and Sci-Fi should be commended, and fans have the right to demand a comprehensive DVD edition of the show. Every time I come across a marathon of ""Hercules: The Legendary Journeys"" on Sci-Fi, I roll my eyes and sigh, mourning the excitement and possibility of science fiction television that ""Invisible Man"" and its ilk represented.",Positive "Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed",Negative "I actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.",Negative "Good grief! While I still maintain that Manos: The Hands of Fate is the worst piece of mental torture available, Hobgoblins came awfully close. This...this...thing insults the audience at every opportunity.

At least films like Space Mutiny and Future War can be enjoyed on mst3k, this one was a struggle to get through. I was literally writhing on the couch in anguish. This thing managed to embarrass me - alone!

Even if you are a die-hard MST3K fan and have made it your mission to see every single experiment, think twice about seeing this one.

It's that bad.",Negative "This is unlike any other movie, the closest thing I can compare it to is a Woody Allen film... But where as Woody Allen is constantly fathoming human foibles Bret Carr appears to be trying to figure out a way to get to grips with that one crippling insecurity that tends to define us for better or worse. In the Case of Lou, it is the root cause of his stuttering, which can be traced back to a singular child hood trauma that is revealed through flash backs.

There are so many strangely neurotic people in the world and I believe they all deserve a chance for redemption, although diversity of human character is after all what makes the world such an intriguing place, so maybe we shouldn't fix our neurosis anymore than we should fix our noses or Breasts.

This is an indie film shot on a long shoestring, but the production values are tremendous as is the scope of the film. I feel like its a quirky Gem for the self-help market. I really look forward to seeing what this filmmaker does next, i could imagine a career along the lines of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, although usually when a guy like this breaks through, he goes off and makes "" X MEN"" and his humble quirky origins are soon forgotten or are they.... X Men is aout a bunch of freaks if i remember correctly :)",Positive "The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after ""Tarzan and the Huntress"") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with ""Tarzan and the Amazons"", ""Tarzan and the Leopard Woman"" and ""Tarzan and the Huntress"", and finished his career directing the classic ""The Fly"" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.",Negative "There is no doubt that Halloween is by far one of the best films ever not only in its genre but also outside.I love the films creepy atmosphere like the whole it could happen here sort of situation makes it scary to think about.Also to imagine if you were ever in this situation what would you do.This is a movie that i enjoy watching highly, especially around Halloween time.John Carpenter is a very professional directer i love a lot of his other films, but there is no doubt that his best known movie is the film Halloween.Oh and if your thinking about watching the Rob Zombie remake don't.It is pure crap and a true Halloween fan would like the 1978 John Carpenter version better.Michael Myers is one of the coolest slasher killers in any film, and is a very well known one.So by all means go see this masterpiece you will really like it.",Positive "This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white ""Pomeranian"" navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.

But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.

Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one ""Lola"", an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank.

It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of ""instruction"" about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help ""teach him"" how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.

I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.

The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent.

Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,""consistency""! Thy name is not ""screenwriting"" necessarily!",Positive "Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...",Negative "Dreamquest is by far, the best porn movie I've ever viewed. This is a must see!!! And if you're skeptical about your little ones watching it, just skip over the naughty scenes. Of course, this shortens the movie to a length of about 15 minutes. But even then it's enjoyable. This movie is quite excellent and beats out almost any movie...even Shawshank Redemption.",Positive "Well, of course not, women are overly sensitive and needy on average, which is interestingly portrayed from mother to whore, though not pseudo-artistically, extravagantly, or blatantly dwelt on. Unlike many of you I have only seen La Maman et La Putain twice. As many good films, I noticed my opinion of it improved after a second viewing. All that I know is what I have seen and have yet to delve into further exploits until I myself have acquired the dvd. I have yet to figure out precisely why I enjoy this movie so much, but really, what do I care why? Though I'm sure I could and will form some wonderful explanation. All right, so you may disagree, perhaps it is a bit boring at times, I'm not an expert. The blonde reminds me of a lovely Grushenka.",Positive "This movie is amazing for several reasons. Harris takes an extremely awkward documentary and turns it into a relevant social commentary. Groovin' Gary is a small-town kid who is (assumed) well-liked for his many impersonations. When he decides to play Olivia Newton John in a local talent show (for whom he is very passionate), Gary's actions show that he is at odds with the conservative social environment in which he lives. This results in him making various justifications for his actions so that people will not think that he is in fact a transvestite or other such social outcast. In the second installment, Harris exploites the struggle between Gary and Beaver in a novice attempt to make a narrative out of the original documentary. The third and final installment to the trilogy is truly amazing for Harris' extreme sensitivity with the subject. Unlike the second installment, ""The Orkly Kid"" shows Gary as a truly troubled character. He struggles to gain acceptance within his own community to no avail. His secret passion for dressing like Olivia Newton John distances him even further from the people that already consider him a social outcast. The movie is depicted so realistically that, like reality, it lends itself to many reactions. Surely, one can see Gary as a ridiculously pathetic character, but may also identify with him as an outcast.",Positive "Along with ""Brothers & Sisters"", ""Six Degrees"" was one of my favorite new dramas of fall 2006.

Great cast all around, but really enjoyed the work of Campbell Scott (the come-back photog) and Hope Davis (recent widow of journalist killed in Iraq).

Aside from the acting, the writing was fresh and the acting superb. The show was also shot in NYC, the real city, not the Warner Bros. or some other studio's backlot, adding a secondary layer or realism.

I guess people are more interested in the latest ""Survivor"" and other reality garbage. Too bad it didn't last.",Positive "OK, here is my personal list of top Nicktoons shows as in today:

1. All Grown Up/SpongeBob SquarePants

2. My Life as a Teenage Robot

3. Invader Zim

4. CATSCRATCH/Rugrats

Notice a word with only capital letters? That means this is the Nick show I'm going to talk about.

""Catscratch"" is basically a simple but great animated comedy about three wealthy cats - Mr. Blik, Gordon, and Waffles - who get into weird and REALLY surreal situations, from attempting to join Human Kimberely's slumber party for root beer to saving a planet of slugs from the evil spaceship. This is one Nick show that you will simply have your funny bone tickled sooner or later! The theme song is catchy and memorable. Voice actors - including Wayne Knight from the ""Seinfield"" franchise - brings the characters to fresh life with very quirky personalities. The stories are enjoyable (fans' episodes would be ""King of All Root Beer"" and ""Gordon's Lucky Claw""). And the humor is all done in some style of Earthworm Jim.

So in conclusion, ""Catscratch"" is one of the Nicktoons series, like ""Invader Zim"" and ""MLAATR"", which becomes very, very popular all over the world in just 3 seasons or less.",Positive "or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.

or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it ""wishi-washi""), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.

It simply doesn't work.

The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.

Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.

Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.

That's a big difference.

This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.

We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.

They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.

Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...

Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.

This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.

It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.

The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting ""I spend a night with superman"". Warner Brothers, that's too much.

Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.

Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.

The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.

Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.

For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.

I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.

Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.

Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.)",Negative "Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.",Negative "Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it.",Negative "As a young boy, I always sort of hated ""Cinderella,"" since I was outvoted by my two sisters when my parents were considering what Disney movie to buy. I wanted ""Dumbo,"" but my sisters won out, and we got ""Cinderella."" They thoroughly enjoyed the movie while I sulked in the back of the room playing with my Star Wars action figures.

A lot has changed since then. My love of the Disney theme parks landed me an internship at Walt Disney World, and I now have two young nieces. I like to showcase Disney to them as much as I can, and we recently watched ""Cinderella"" together. With my newfound appreciation for all that is Disney, I watched ""Cinderella"" with a new perspective and was impressed with what I saw.

From the beginning of the movie, though, I didn't quite understand why Cinderella was trapped in such a horrible predicament. Why was she such a slave to her stepfamily, and why couldn't she just run away? I wasn't too sympathetic to Cinderella, but as the story progressed, I found myself becoming immersed in the story. Maybe the eye-catching animation or the fun-loving characters drew me in, or maybe it was the timeless songs. Listening to songs like ""Bibbidy-Bobbidy-Boo"" and ""A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes"" sort of whisked me back to the theme parks. I can picture myself in that carefree and fun atmosphere while looking at the awe-inspiring Cinderella Castle.

Something about this movie just evokes the magic of Disney. That may make many people scoff, but go to the Magic Kingdom and see all the little girls dressed up like Cinderella that are excited to be in this fantasy world, and you'll know what I'm talking about. The images of Cinderella and the glass slipper - as well as Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and Tinkerbell - embody why Disney is one of the most beloved companies in the entire world.

While ""Cinderella"" may not be the strongest story, it is sort of iconic in Disney and movie history. It represents that fun, idealistic, and fantasy-like wonderment we held when we were kids. I imagine this movie holds a lot of meaning to many, many people out there. It may not be my favorite Disney movie, but it does represent all that I love and admire about the Company.

My IMDb Rating: 10/10. My Yahoo! Grade: A (Outstanding)",Positive "I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so ""well done"" I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.",Negative "I have lately got into the habit of purchasing any interesting DVD that the Criterion company releases. I figure that even if I dislike the movie, Criterion usually supplies enough extra material to compensate for any shortcomings in the actual film. I read up on them, and I buy the ones which are the most interesting to me.

Le Million is my latest purchase, and I must say that I was not disappointed in the film. It is cheery, funny, and romantic. Everything about it is quite excellent. The songs are wonderful. If I understood French, I would probably hum them and sing them all day long. The acting is very good for this kind of movie. American musicals of the classic Hollywood era relied more on song and dance than the actual characters and story, but in Le Million, the characters are rather well developed and the story, while not being anything extremely impressive, is not at all lacking. I loved the developments of the relationships, especially the relationship between the once best friends Michel and Prosper. The romantic moments are also very well developed. The direction is nearly perfect, with several very memorable moments. Probably the single most perfect scene of the film occurs right after the lead couple has an argument. They hide on the stage of an opera performance, and the opera singers sing lines which the couple, Michel and Beatrice, interpret to their own situation. This is definitely one of the high points in cinema history. The scene managed to make me laugh, to win me over with a very sweet romance, and make me smirk at just how clever the director was. I give this film a 9/10.

P.S. - Some information for anyone who has the same faith in Criterion that I do and is planning to buy it. Amongst the Criterion discs I now own, Le Million contains the fewest features. All it has is a photo gallery (not all that useful; one might flip through it once) and a rare television interview with Rene Clair, the director. This piece is of some interest. He was one of the many directors who had started out in silent film, and when talkies were first appearing, he said that they represented the death of film. I think most film-savvy people understand what these directors meant when they said that, but it is interesting to hear him explain it. Also, if you have read the description of this movie on Amazon.com, please note that they were wrong in one important respect: not every line in the film is sung. In fact, it contains no more songs than a regular musical. It is actually a lot more like a Chaplin or Buster Keaton or Marx Brothers film. My criticisms of the disc are not that important. Heck, Criterion has the right to smack me around for making those complaints. The fact is, their people probably spent hundreds of hours fixing up a film which only 20 (now 21!) people have voted for on imdb, and only about a hundred people, if that, will ever see the film. Heck, if you look at the Criterion web site, Le Million is nowhere to be found. I have no clue why not. It's something they should really be proud of (of course, their web site is surprisingly horrible). They did a fine job on this film. Bravo! They deserve all the money I can stand to give them!",Positive "I watched this film so many times through my child hood that even to this day i can pretty much re-sight all of the dialogue. And when I watch it now it just makes me happy and surprisingly still laugh. I think it's amazing how they managed to train animals especially the cat to the extent that they are able to play the main role of a feature film. However watching it now I can also unfortunately notice that it isn't the masterpiece i once thought it was. But i prefer to remember how i felt about it when i was younger watching it on VHS on my fist TV that would cloud the image in yellow. And and bearing in mind it is a children's film, that is why i would still definitely give it 10/10.",Positive "This is one of my all time favorites. It is so simple and sweet - definitely a chick flick romantic comedy. I really like a film full of good quotes and this has it... one of my favorites is when Albert Einstein says to Ed Walters ""Are you thinking what I'm thinking"" and Ed says ""Now what are the odds of that happening!"" In my opinion, a film is fabulous if you can watch it again and again and get the same amount of enjoyment out of it, and with this one, you can!! I also really enjoyed Walter M.s way of portraying Einstein. I think all the characters fit together really well and the story flows nicely. There are so many times that I find myself smiling right along with the film and quoting my favorite lines as I watch it! I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a heart and enjoys a feel-good romantic comedy now and then!",Positive "This is a sad film made for sad people. I was sitting in theaters tearing my hair apart, wanting to break the chairs in front of me as the movie spitted out one cringe-inducing scenes after another. And there were people roaring with laughter behind me, which made me wonder what kind of films these people must be watching to actually enjoy this horse-s**t.

Nikkhil Advani has six stories with no plot and no interesting characters. The screenplay is dull, probably he was drunk when he was writing this film. There is no strong hold on any of these stories. Nothing new , nothing to hold the audience and filled with dialogs which you would have heard a million times before. One of the stories is about this couple not being able to have sex because of series of disasters taking place every time they want to do it. I mean seriously is this story really required? Its not funny, not creative but only proves that Advani has no sense of comedy. Another of the stories (which was probably the only story I was interested in) is based on a man's infidelity and that too ends in a lame age-old sati-savitri pati-parmeshwar crap. I have no idea what the Salmaan-Priyanka plot was all about. There was no issue in the plot for it to be a plot. She can't take Karan Johar's film because she has to marry Salmaan ?? Why can't she marry him and still take the film ?? or does Advani and Priyanaka just want to prove the world that it is in fact true that female actors cant be successful if they are married or that they should not act in films once they are married?? With six actors in the film obviously Advani cant produce the film all by himself. So he makes full use of sponsors like the Times group, shamelessly promoting their Filmfare magazines. And also some jewelery brand which the women in the film absolutely seem to adore!! I come to IMDb to give it the worst rating and i am shocked to see posts praising the film. It just goes to show the sad state of bollywood and how star struck the fans are. With fans like these, movies like Salaam E Ishq will be continue to be made and worse probably be a hit.",Negative "Well the main reason I tuned in to watch this film is because it was done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. However as soon as the film started the laughs started erupting from my belly. From the subtle gestures towards a joke, to the blatant toilet humour throughout, along with a constant reliance on some very witty innuendo. This film could ruin event he sternest mans poker face, let alone his poker underwear. Some of the funniest blink and you'll miss it jokes ever portrayed in Hollywood, along with constant critique of themselves thrown into the bargain.

I just goes to show that not only is Trey Parker adept at writing he's not too shabby at the old acting game either. I was surprised with the amount that I was absorbed in this film. However I'm quite worried that it is not available to buy over the internet, here in the UK. Sort it out boys!

I am, and will continue to show it to all my friends annoyingly pointing out the funny bits, and occasionally snorting into my lager. All in all an excellent film if you are a fan of unnecessary comedy. However if you have no sense of humour about silly or rude things steer well clear! However I'm sure the inclusion of Jenny McCarthy and Jasmine Bleeth could have you gurgling past those prejudices.",Positive "Against All Hope is a very poorly made, sometimes painfully so, movie. This is Michael Madsen's first movie, and it shows, he isn't that good in it. Some people might find the story laughable; an alcoholic realizes his life and family are falling apart so he calls a preacher as a last resort for help. After telling the preacher his story, he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart.

I actually found many of the religious scenes, as when Cecil Moe (Madsen) goes to a church but walks away from it, pretty realistic. I also liked how Cecil knows his life is breaking apart and tries to get help, but realizes only God can help him. At the end he realizes with the help of God he can go through life without drinking again.

This movie is not well made at all. The acting is bad, the script could use some work, and looks worse than my home videos, but it has a good message. Now, just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you will automatically be able to stop an addiction or heal your broken family, and Cecil realizes this and works hard to stay on track. Overall, if your a Christian you will appreciate how this movie portrays Christianity and if you aren't, you may find yourself being called to find out more about the faith.",Negative "Plot Synopsis: Hong Kong, 1966. Paul Wagner, the man who built the Victoria Tunnel, is murdered along with his wife by his associates. His twin sons, Chad & Alex, are split apart. 25 years later, Chad, a karate instructor in Los Angeles, & Alex, a smuggler living in Hong Kong, join forces to avenge their parents' murder & rightfully claim the tunnel.

This is the second time that Jean-Claude Van Damme & Sheldon Lettich have worked together, having previously done ""Lionheart"". This is also the first of three films to feature Van Damme playing dual roles (""Maximum Risk"" & ""Replicant"" are the others). The plot is a very simplistic take on the revenge story, the film's sole redeeming feature being Van Damme's performance as two very different people – the prissy rich kid & the rough-&-tumble, cigar chomping tough guy. As it goes, Van Damme doesn't do a very good job in either role, although his take on Alex is mildly amusing. It is puzzling as to have the brothers mistaken for each other, with them wearing different clothes & having different hairstyles. Bolo Yeung makes a very worthy henchman for the baddies.",Negative "Dev Anand (or Prashant) and Zeenat Aman ( Jasbir/Janice) are siblings brought up in single parent families. Jasbir (the sister) grows up in an affluent environment but this is not enough to lead her to reject her life and ultimately join a hippie movement that eventually leads her to drugs. Prashant (the brother) on the other hand grows up in a less affluent environment but grows up to be a matured gentleman. The story marks Prashant making efforts to save his little sister (who is perpetually in a trance) from a hostile hippie environment. This movie stands the test of time, commenting that cults and hippie groups are a place for those who give up on their lives when they should instead stand up and be counted in the face of adversity. Great music compositions in this movie that mean different things in different situations and to different people, and the director brings forth an eerie feeling to it.",Positive "Cinderella....

I hadn't watched this film for about five years the last time i saw it. The magic remains. There is something that definitely contains that storybook feel, the songs entertain and the secondary character's all please. The villains in the form of step sisters are perfectly evil and vile. Then there is the most magical of all Disney, the mice making the dress and well you know the rest. To sum up the four of the Disney princess movies are all great but this is a charming magical experience, watch and enjoy. Oh and of course, Cinderella is wonderful as the main character in the movie.

If you think about it Disney movies can really lost their charm. With Elene Wood and others the movie has such a feel to it, you simply can't help but smile

They say the moral of this story is that dreams come true. Of course in the real world some are believers others are hoper's. In this film it's even more the magical when her rainbow comes smiling.

And of course the rest is...Cinderella",Positive "this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead

Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!",Negative "The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, ""Here we go! A good vampire movie!""

And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.

Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.

It rates a 1.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.",Negative "This movie isn't as bad as I heard. It was enjoyable, funny and I love that is revolves around the holiday season. It totally has me in the mood to Christmas shop and listen to holiday music. When this movie comes out on DVD it will take the place of Christmas Vacation in my collection. It will be a movie to watch every year after Thanksgiving to get me in the mood for the best time of the year. I heard that Ben's character was a bit crazy but I think it just adds to the movie and why be so serious all the time. Take it for what is it, a Christmas comedy with a love twist. I enjoyed it. No, it isn't Titanic and it won't make your heart pound with anticipation but it will bring on a laugh or two. So go laugh and have a good time:)",Positive "Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand",Negative "Back in the forties, when movies touched on matters not yet admissible in ""polite"" society, they resorted to codes which supposedly floated over the heads of most of the audience while alerting those in the know to just what was up. Probably no film of the decade was so freighted with innuendo as the oddly obscure Desert Fury, set in a small gambling oasis called Chuckawalla somewhere in the California desert. Proprietress of the Purple Sage saloon and casino is the astonishing Mary Astor, in slacks and sporting a cigarette holder; into town drives her handful-of-a-daughter, Lizabeth Scott, looking, in Technicolor, like 20-million bucks. But listen to the dialogue between them, which suggests an older Lesbian and her young, restless companion (one can only wonder if A.I. Bezzerides' original script made this relationship explicit). Even more blatant are John Hodiak as a gangster and Wendell Corey as his insanely jealous torpedo. Add Burt Lancaster as the town sheriff, stir, and sit back. Both Lancaster and (surprisingly) Hodiak fall for Scott. It seems, however, that Hodiak not only has a past with Astor, but had a wife who died under suspicious circumstances. The desert sun heats these ingredients up to a hard boil, with face-slappings aplenty and empurpled exchanges. Don't pass up this hothouse melodrama, chock full of creepily exotic blooms, if it comes your way; it's a remarkable movie.",Positive "The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.",Positive "If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.

The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one.",Positive "I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the ""Brotherhood of the Protectors"", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers ""excommunicated"" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as ""brothers"" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say ""Father"" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says ""Brother"" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as ""Father"".

In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all ""Brotherhood of the Protector"" scenes re-shot as ""Archdiocese"" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in ""Godzilla""). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?",Positive "I have to start by telling you how I came across this movie.It was winter time in Alaska around the year 1990.A friend of mine from Australia was staying with me and my girl friend in a shoe box of an apartment.Winters in Alaska can be a bit brutal and most people stay indoors,drink heavily and watch anything that comes on the television.I had found this movie outside of a thrift store laying in a snowbank and right away new it was a treasure.It is quite possibly the best worst movie ever.We spent the next two weeks watching this movie and drinking like fish.We watched it so many times in fact that we would sometimes turn the television on its side or upside down for a more full filling effect.It is a true gem.The laughs will come nonstop and the memories last forever.If you see this movie for rent in a video store,steal it.You won't regret it!",Positive "I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.

The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.

A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.",Negative "This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.

The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.

Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a ""win-able"" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.

Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of ""How NOT to make a film.""

It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes...",Negative "When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her ""mystical powers""? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here.",Negative "This film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.

Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition movies.",Negative "......... and you get Chori Chori Chupke Chupke. Don't get me wrong, this movie is much less explicit (or not even) than Pretty Woman, but it (was) a new topic for Bollywood. The topic was accepted but it is far from Jism, Murder, and Julie. To tell you the truth, the topic is presented in a very clean manner. But the plot has it's number of clichés. The beginning of the movie is presented in a very ""filmi"" way. There are some very little plot holes. The movie picks up once Rani has her miscarriage where you feel that you are watching something other than a typical movie. Otherwise the whole family sequence felt overdone in the beginning. The acting couldn't have been any better. Salman Khan sometimes impresses, and sometimes lets you down. Over here he gave one of the best performances. On top of that his role is written so well, that you applaud every time he solves a problem. Rani Mukherjee was adequate. Throughout the movie, you feel for her character the most, but she is overshadowed by Preity Zinta. Preity Zinta is picture perfect. Out of the three, she gives everyone a run for their money. Its surprising how she can be just as convincing when she is innocent. And trust me, Madhubala is far from your girl next door. This role is one of the reasons why I rate her high. The supporting cast are like the family you see in HAHK, where they have no significance to the plot yet I found them tolerable here. The songs are pretty nice. The title song is my favorite of them all along with Dil Tera Mera Dil (Hearts). Mehndi Mehndi (Henna) and Dekhne Walon Ne (Look at the World's Sight) are two song that fit the film perfectly. Preity's cabaret number, Diwani Diwani (Crazy), could've been shortened while No. 1 Punjabi came across boring though it had good dancing. Otherwise the movie is definitely worth a watch.",Positive "Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.

Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.

The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.

I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it.",Negative "I first saw this movie back in the early '90's when it was first released. Room With a View was also newly out. Enchanted April had so much more to offer! I found it much more real and earthy, the characters more believable for being 'normal'. By the end of the film I felt the same as I did when I first saw the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, I was yearning for the characters to find what they were looking for whether it was isolation, peace, liberty or love. You get a sense throughout that Italy is so far removed from everything they have ever known, that they are so decadent for taking a risk and leaving behind all that is humdrum and constricting. But in the heat of the spring in April, everyone's lives loosen and unravel (in line with the Victorian corsets) and are slowly rebuilt to everyone's satisfaction. What a little gem of a film! How come it isn't more well known?",Positive "The story for the first-aired television installment of ""Columbo"" is simple: one-half of successful mystery-writing team does away with the other, frames an unseen Mafia group, is blackmailed by an admirer, does away with the admirer, and is tricked up by the stalwart Columbo.

With that said, this is still one of the most entertaining in the show's history, benefiting tremendously by the work of the late Jack Cassidy and star Peter Falk.

Besides the notability of being directed by a young Steven Spielberg, the episode also has a air of the macabre because of the future of two of its stars: Cassidy and Barbara Colby. The two share several scenes together and it is poignant that both would die tragically within a decade of this filming, Cassidy in an apartment fire and Colby at the hands of assailants, yet to be found after over three decades.

Now, both demises are true-life MYSTERIES!",Positive "I've seen many of Guy Maddin's films, and liked most of them, but this one literally gave me a headache. John Gurdebeke's editing is way too frenetic, and, apart from a tour-de-force sequence showing a line of heads snapping to look at one object, does nothing but interfere with the actors' ability to communicate with the audience.

Another thing I disliked about this film was that it seemed more brutal than Maddin's earlier works--though his films have always had dark elements, his sympathy for the characters gave the movies an overriding feeling of humanity. This one seemed more like harshness for harshness' sake.

As I'm required to add more lines of text before IMDb will accept my review, I will mention that the actor playing ""Guy Maddin"" does manage to ape his facial expressions pretty well.",Negative "This is probably one of Brian De Palma's best known movies but it isn't his best. Body Double, The Fury and Carrie are better movies but this movie is better than Blow Out and Obsession. De Palma is very influenced by Hitchcock and this movie is a take off on Psycho. Angie Dickinson is a bored housewife who is thinking of having an affair and after her psychiatrist, played by Michael Caine, turns down an offer, Dickinson meets a man in a art gallery and she winds up sleeping with him. After this point it's best you don't know what happens but there is a murder and Nancy Allen is a call girl who gets a look at the killer. Dennis Franz is the detective on the case who really doesn't trust Allen and she has to find the killer herself. It's a pretty good movie but isn't one of De Palma's best.",Positive "This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.",Negative "DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.

The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.

The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.

I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.",Negative "I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of ""you know what"". Dirt on the ""mystery machine"" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...",Negative "I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like ""Citizen Kane"" and ""Seven Samaurai."" However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and ""Paulie"" doesn't qualify for that.

The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.

Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. (""I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.

Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.

If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, ""Paulie"" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of ""Paulie."" I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, ""let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning."" So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.

It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching.",Positive "I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity.",Positive "Reed Hadley makes a better foppish Don Diego than he does a dashing and daring Zorro, but that's almost beside the point because this serial features the bar-none best theme song of any serial, ever -- and the best version of Yakima Canutt's famous stagecoach stunt. There are other good stunts, and lots of action, and plenty of hair-raising cliff-hanger chapter endings, but if for no other reason, you must see this film to watch the stagecoach stunt, then re-watch it in slow motion. It is incredible, and, despite the lower budget for this chapter play, Yak turns in a better take on the stunt here than he did in the far more celebrated film ""Stagecoach."" Indiana Jones, eat your heart out: This is the real deal!",Positive "The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a ""kid"" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying ""I'm Keyser Soze"", or another animal saying ""You're a dead cat walking"", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10.",Negative "This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.

There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.

Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.",Negative "Just to mention one more thing about Gentleman Jim. I agree with all the assessments that make this among Errol Flynn's greatest outings in a career of great outings. I would think this role playing boxer Jim Corbett is more like his real personality than the swashbucklers he was typecast as. Flynn seemed like a party animal from his memoirs and was one guy whose real life was more exciting than his screen life. The extra thing I wanted to point out is notice the great montages, transitions, and still inserts that punctuate the film. Although the director was Raoul Walsh, a frequent collaborator with Flynn, with cinematographer Sid Hickox, the montages were made up by an up and coming editor named Don Siegel. I never knew Siegel went that far back but he's listed right in the credits. He would go on to a great career as action director himself.",Positive "The ""gangster"" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichés that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you.",Positive "My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie.",Negative "I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving.

2/10",Negative "I wish I could say that this show was unusual in it's banality,but it is usual in every way.It has the dumb husband,his smarter but boring and conventional wife, along with the idiotic sidekick for ""comic"" relief-it sorely needs it.Stale predictable jokes, with even more predictable reactions from the laughtrack, punctuate this noxious mental narcotic's nauseatingly unimaginative plot lines to leave me either physically ill, or in a deep sleep more resembling that of an induced coma. But it might be on for a while yet because it gives the average American a personage to which they can truly identify.A ""regular"" guy just like you and me.I live in the southern U.S, so to me this show is just the opposite of escapism.Down here, that obnoxious character is everywhere, in some form or another.Seeing him on television is brutal overkill.",Negative "It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.",Negative "The second Care Bears movie is immensely better than its predecessor. It has a deeper plot, better character development, and the tunes (especially the closing song) are both catchy and warm-hearted. Sure the movie tends to over stress caring but come on, it IS a Care Bears movie. This movie is a great picture to show to kids because it emphasizes friendship, love, and again, caring. Not to mention the Care Bears are just too adorable!",Positive "If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!",Positive "Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.

Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever ""social ill"" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling ""Iowa"" ""important."" But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.

The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, ""What happened?"" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work.

Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.

This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of ""American Idol,"" perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film.

What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.",Negative "As I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype.

It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!",Negative "Well here comes another,well,romantic comedy...but unlike all others movies of this genre,this is by far the best I have seen in a long while..

I'll admit,at first I wanted to watch this movie because of Megan Fox,and a little because of Simon Pegg...

First of all,if you have watched a decent amount of movies,you will know that Sidney and Alison would be together at the and of the movie,one way or another...but from the beginning to the end of the movie you won't know how...

Okay,now this movie is just made for Simon Pegg.I can't see any other actor in the role of Sidney,and I'm sure this would be a very weaker movie if not for Pegg's great performance.

There is a number of great gags and jokes in this movie that kept me laughing really hard,courtesy of Simon Pegg's character Sidney...but I think everyone in this movie is good.For example,Kirsten Dunst is really solid in this movie( I usually don't think of her as any more than an average actress,but she was really good in this one ),then there's Jeff Bridges,there's Gillian Anderson,and of course Megan Fox who plays spoiled bitchy star Sophie Maes...great role for her...

All in all,while I usually don't agree with ratings her on IMDb,this time I would completely agree with them...

Go and see this movie,it is really light-hearted and positive,and I recommend it deeply... My rating 7 out of 10...well 7.5 actually...",Positive "I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons ""The Passion"". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.",Negative This film to me is a very good film!!

I have a German Shepherd myself and I wish to god he was like Jerry Lee!! I hope too that there is another K-9 in the running!! With Jerry Lee and Dooley in them!! I don't care what any one say these two films were excellent!!,Positive "An uninspired and undistinguished ""new"" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...

And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story ""Murder Under Glass"" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!

Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.",Negative "Jammin' the Blues is an Oscar-nominated short from 1944 that is basically 10 minutes of improvisational jazz played in one long jam. Marie Bryant sings ""The Sunny Side of the Street"" at one point for the film's highlight then jitterbugs with Archie Savage to bring this most entertaining ""jam session"" to its exciting end. The director Gojn Mili was a photographer and that experience shows in some of the double exposure shots of some of the musicians that makes this one of the most innovative angles of the '40s. According to some notes I read one of the musicians was white and had to be filmed in silhouette in reflection of the social attitudes of the time. What a shame. Still, this most unusual film of the time is available on YouTube so if you love jazz, I suggest you seek it out there.",Positive "I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia.

The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.",Negative "Maslin Beach is a real nudist/naturist beach south of Adelaide, on the Fleurieu Peninsula, in South Australia. It is also the name of an Australian film that used the beach as a location.

Maslin Beach is labelled a romantic comedy. This could be slightly misleading, as it is not a 'hilarious' film, nor is it really romantic in the traditional sense, but it does have light-hearted moments. Much as life itself, there are also moments of sadness too. It is also entirely shot at the nudist beach mentioned above, and nudity runs throughout the length of film. The viewer quickly learns to accept this as normal, and concentrate on the plot, not the copious amount of flesh.

Simon and Marcie (Michael Allen and Eliza Lovell) arrive by car at a beach-side car park. They take their belongings to the beach, and while they are walking, a voice-over from Simon talks about his confusion about what real love is. The rest of the film is an exploration of this, framed by one complete day at the beach. The basic story is of what happens to Simon's love life, but there are also many other characters highlighted in several separate vignettes.

When they arrive at the beach, both Simon and Marcie appear bored with each other. Marcie sees them as a 'Romeo and Juliet' romantic couple. Simon is just bored with it all. Next, we are introduced to Gail (Bonnie-Jaye Lawrence), Paula (Zara Collins) and Jenny (Jennifer Ross). They are walking down the beach together discussing Gail's chances of finding the 'perfect' man, aided by the 'powers' of a necklace that brought good luck to her Grandmother. However, there are many more interesting people on the beach, not all of them 'attractive' and young (part of the realism of this film).

To service the beach's patrons there is a flatulent, short-sighted ice-cream salesperson with a van. This is Ben (Gary Waddell), who is a friend of Simon, and is also his unofficial counsellor. I would think that this character is the main comic element. It is hard to say though, as there is nothing about Ben that would make you laugh aloud, unless you were intoxicated, male and very young! Maslin Beach does have a major redeeming feature though, and that is that it does not dwell too long on any one subject. As the quality of acting is variable, the script is suspect and everything about Maslin Beach is cheap, the lack of continuity is a positive boon. In fact, there is something about this film (not the nudity) that I find appealing. It is hard to define what it is, but it could be something to do with its bluntness, and downright 'Aussie' attitude to carnal matters.

The camera work in Maslin Beach deserves a mention. Sometimes it is very good, with some stunning static shots and 'pans' of the beach, cliffs and a sunset. As nudity is a major factor in this film, framing is an important aspect of the camera work. There is no sense of gratuity in the framing, meaning that the framing is done so that the camera does not dwell on 'private' body parts. This helps to ease any sense of viewer discomfort from being within the subject's 'personal space', and makes the film more tasteful. Not an easy task, given the location for filming.

Maslin Beach is neither a 'skin flick' for post-pubescent, testosterone charged males, nor a 'Mills and Boon' romance for under-appreciated women. Maslin Beach does not seem to fit anywhere in genre. The actors are not 'attractive' in the Baywatch sense, and are just 'normal' people that you would see on the beach anywhere. It does not have a message to put across and it would not even act as a tourism advertisement, other than perhaps to Naturists. Apart from the Australian accent, the filming could have been in any sunny country. What makes this film distinctly Australian is the fact that it is pointless (cinema verite?), and only Australian Cinema, and other medium sized National Cinemas, could consider such a rash option. At the same time, these medium sized cinemas have room for experimentation in the quest for identity, and a 'flop' is not going to damage their reputation too much. It is always possible, given that Maslin Beach is now a collector's item, that the film might become internationally popular, but it is very unlikely.

During this critique, I have been sounding highly negative, at times, about Maslin Beach. This is not the real position, as I found the film very easy to watch. I enjoyed it as a reflection of near reality and real people (and problems). The problems confronted in the film are those of the everyday, and a little low on spectacle. This does it no harm in my view, and I wish that more films dealt with the everyday like this. There is a connection here with the cinemas of Europe, and with French film in particular. They rarely deal with major disasters or catastrophes, but with the everyday. Hollywood is in direct opposition to this, and rides the crest of the hyper-real action/drama/angst wave. The pace too, is much faster in Hollywood, but it is not reality. Maslin Beach is not exactly 'Jacques Tati' either, but it is on the right track, even if it does ignore issues of multi culturalism, equality, gender orientation and so on, that are of such importance in current cinema. I am sure that you will either love or hate this film, with little room for a middle ground.

",Positive "This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original ""Criminally Insane"". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has ""Criminally Insane II"" (as it had it, ""Crazy Fat Ethel II""). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?

Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .",Negative "Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see ""art"" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the ""stories"" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the ""Der Schulmaedchenreport"" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what ""Decameron"" looks like to me.

Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish:

1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the ""fine details"" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly ""Eraserhead"" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...)

2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses ""real people instead of actors"". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?)

3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.

4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art!

5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. ""Decameron"" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.

6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find ""deep"" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding ""meaning"" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans!

As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.

This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: ""I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?"" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...

Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.",Negative "When you put this DVD into your player and hit ""play,"" you will experience a brief moment of silence and see a black screen as the laser is guided to the correct starting point in the center of the disc. CHERISH THIS MOMENT. Make sure you have some Tylenol or something (preferably PM's so you can fall asleep), because you're going to have a massive headache once this movie starts.

Starring a bunch of big-breasted girls and with an opening that actually made me chuckle a bit, I thought I'd be in for a good time. Sure, the opening sequence was a WEE bit awkward and most of the jokes fell flat and it seemed like this was going to be a Scream ripoff (by the way, my sole chuckle was from Julie Strain's final comment in this scene). But then I knew there was trouble... the opening sequence had a terrible rock song. During this terrible rock song, I looked over the DVD Chapter titles and saw things that said ""TOPLESS IN THE BACKYARD!"" and ""BETTER THAN SEX!"". I knew what the selling point of this movie was going to be.

And that's the sad truth: The ONLY good thing about this movie is the attractive cast. Other than that, it's a sadly routine slasher film that throws in an ""innovative"" concept about murder clubs, which ends up being fake anyway. So, the whole movie then points in another direction to try to be confusing and this huge mystery, but it all just adds up to not being interesting at all and leaves you feeling like you don't care for any of the characters. I mean, when the main character of the movie is revealed to have murdered an innocent woman, can you really feel ANY sympathy towards her when she's in fear for her life? The Scream influence is prevalent throughout, with a ghost face killer and some really terrible jokes. We're also treated to scenes of the main character talking to her mom and dad (Lloyd Kaufman! The only other cool part of the movie!) about an abortion or something. Uh. Yeah... This isn't a ""so-bad-it's-good"" movie, it's just BAD.

Someone compared this to a Troma film, but... you know, most any film that comes from Full Moon (or its offshoot, as this film proves) is horrible. NOT horrible in a Troma sense -- I've seen many Troma films, and I can honestly say they all offer something, ANYTHING that you can walk away with and tell your friends about later. However, this film has pretty much nothing at all enjoyable about it. Beware.",Negative "Bored and unhappy young babe Zandalee (a winningly sultry and vibrant performance by luscious brunette knockout Erika Anderson) feels trapped in a stale and loveless marriage to failed poet and decent, yet dull businessman Thierry Martin (a solid and credible portrayal by Judge Reinhold). Zandalee has a torrid adulterous fling with sleazy and arrogant artist Johnny Collins (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Nicolas Cage). Can the relationship between Thierry and Zandalee be salvaged? Or is everything going to fall apart and go to seed? Director Sam Pillsbury and screenwriter Mari Kornhauser lay on the tawdry soap opera-style histrionics something thick while attempting to tell a wannabe serious and insightful story about desire run amok and its potentially dangerous consequences; the plot goes gloriously off the rails in the laughably histrionic last third. The dialogue is likewise hilariously silly and vulgar (sample line: ""I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive""). Better still, this flick certainly delivers plenty of tasty female nudity (the gorgeously statuesque Anderson looks smoking hot in the buff) and sizzling semi-pornographic soft-core sex scenes (Johnny and Zandalee doing the dirty deed in a church confessional booth rates as a definite steamy highlight). The tart'n'tangy New Orleans setting adds extra spice to the already steamy proceedings. With his long, scruffy black hair, greasy mustache, foul mouth, and coarse manners, Cage's Johnny is an absolute hoot as the single most grossly unappealing ""romantic"" lead to ever ooze his way onto celluloid. The cast deserve props for acting with admirable sincerity: Anderson, Cage and Reinhold all do respectable work with their parts, with fine support from Joe Pantoliano as Zandalee's merry flamboyant homosexual friend Gerri, Viveca Lindfors as Theirry's wise, perceptive mother Tatta, Aaron Neville as friendly bartender Jack, and Steve Buscemi as a funny, blithely shameless thief. Walt Lloyd's sharp and gleaming cinematography gives the picture an attractive glossy look. The flavorsome, harmonic score by Pray for Rain likewise hits the spot. A delightfully campy and seamy riot.",Positive "This has got to be the best movie I've ever seen.

Combine breathtaking cinematography with stunning acting and a gripping plot, and you have a masterpiece.

Dog Bite Dog had me gripping the edge of my seat during some scenes, recoiling in horror during others, and left me drowning in my own tears after the tragic ending.

The film left a deep impression on me. It's shockingly violent scenes contrasted sharply with the poignant and tender 'love' scenes. The film is undeserving of it's Cat III (nudity) rating; there are no nude scenes whatsoever, and the 'love' scenes do not even involve kissing or 'making out'.

The message which this film presented to me? All human beings, no matter how violent or cruel they may seem, have a tender side. Edison Chen does a superb job playing the part of the murderous Pang.

I rate this film 10/10. It's a must-watch.",Positive "I have to say that this was not very exciting but talk about fashion and weird ways to solve a mystery. A little too simple, Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts) uses IMDb... that's fantastic! I really liked about that part of the movie...

Corky (Josh Flitter) is however extremely hilarious... and Ned Nickerson (Max Thieriot) seemed really hopeless... he should have been more angry with her for how she has treated him...

Alright, this movie is tour and fashion in disguise. Anyhow, I recommend this movie, just for summer fun. Encore Nancy, just for fun. More teen spy movies by Emma Roberts.. Spymate... remember? She's becoming good at this tricky detective work.",Positive "This sports a nice, deep cast but for a thriller you better deliver more than name actors and talk. The first third of this movie was nothing but talk, and more talk. Most of that was a bunch of women bitching about everything to each other.

The first five listed actors in here are women so that verifies that it's really a ""chick flick"" and little else. This probably plays on the Lifetime network.

There was a quick murder scene and then more talk. By halfway through, they had lost me.

By the way, Sally Field looked about 15 years old in here.",Negative "I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise

Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, ""how stupid can you get?"" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.

The story basically is ""Andy"" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term ""social-climber"" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.

However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!",Negative "I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).

We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.

Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.

Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.

An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.

I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.

Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?

One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!

1/10.",Negative "On the surface, ""Show Me The Money"" should have at least finished a full season. You had the always entertaining William Shatner as your host, surrounded by a baker's dozen of beautiful leggy models collectively called ""The Million Dollar Dancers."" You had knowledgeable contestants who had interesting stories to tell of their lives and who presumably knew a lot of pop culture trivia. And you had big money! So, what went wrong?

The format of this game was the failure. A good game show needs at least two of three things: very simple rules, exciting pacing and the ability for the viewer to play along at home. The best, most enduring ones have all three.

Unfortunately, SMTM had none.

The rules for this game were among the most complex of any prime time game show in history. Let me try to explain how the game worked, as briefly as possible.

A contestant began with a single word or short phrase followed by the choice letters A, B, C (subtle plug for the network?). Each letter was connected to a separate question, all starting with that word or phrase. Once a contestant chose one of the letters, they could either answer that question or pass and select a second letter. If they passed, they got to view the next question, and had the same option. However, if they passed the second question, they were required to answer the third option.

After they answered and before they found out if their answer was correct, they then had to select one of the 13 dancers on stage, each with a different amount of money in a scroll by their side. They revealed their dollar amount (ranging from $20,000 to $250,000) and depending on if the contestant answered right... or answered wrong... that amount would be added to or subtracted from their pot.

Still with me so far? In addition, there was one dancer who held something known as ""The Killer Card."" If you selected the dancer with the Killer Card and you had gotten your question right, you were safe, and the game continued. If, however, you were incorrect, you had one final question to answer. If you got that final question wrong, you were out of the game. If you got it right, then, the game continued.

There was no quitting, no walking away with the money earned until you either answered six questions correctly or got six questions wrong or you were so far in the hole you couldn't earn enough money to get back out. Got it? Okay!

The biggest problem, as I saw it, was a complete lack of tension, because of the design of the game. A contestant could pass questions they knew they didn't know, and answer many questions they did know, making the pressure even less. Then, they could still find a low dollar amount, even after knowingly missing a question, which meant there still wasn't any ""drama."" And the fact that they could answer five questions wrong and still have a chance to win was a big mistake. And the pacing of the questions was deadly slow: often the questions were so obvious, it was ridiculous to try to create tension, as if there was any doubt about some of the most common answers.

The pacing, the lack of any real tension at any point during the show and those very complicated rules prevented this program from working, despite Shatner's terpsichorean talents.",Negative "Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes.",Positive "There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.

It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.

I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. ""D-""",Negative "Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!)",Positive "This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different""sweet"" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.",Positive "I finally sat down and saw this film the whole way through, and I must say, I was very impressed. Michelle Rodriguez is probably one of my new favorite actresses---it's not only the fact that she *can* act, but that she chooses the roles best suited to her that are more meaningful and important than what would first seem. I've read a few comments expressing their relief that this was not some awful feminist thing as they thought beforehand, but I certainly disagree. Diana is a feminist. She follows her dreams and believes in herself contrary to what practically everyone around her thinks (with the exception of her caring brother Tiny and her trainer and manager, Hector, who proves to be more a father figure than her real parent), which is what the word ""Feminism"" is all about. It's good to see films like this showcasing the true side of feminism--that they're not a bunch of manhating losers--but that they have dreams and can do anything. Diana is true to herself while still falling prey to love, and she and Adrian have a more realistic, complicated relationship rather than just something that magically works out. Girlfight is a true taste of reality and it put some faith back into my perception of people. Thanks, Michelle.

8/10 - A very important movie that's relatable to not just young women, but everyone wanting to go far in their lives.",Positive "With the badly injured Tony in an induced coma, two things happen: Tony imagines himself leading the life of a salesman attending a business convention, while his family and friends go through hell trying to cope with the possible loss of the big man. The dream sequences are right out of an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, as Tony finds himself transformed into an Average Joe trying to deal with a missing wallet and mixed-up identities while on a cross-country business trip. His intonation as a blazer- and khaki-wearing schnook is more mid-American and less that of an Italian thug from Noo Joisey. A nice touch. The shockingly long-haired, hippy-dippy AJ (whom Paulie calls ""Van Helsing"" at one point) has a nice scene with his comatose old man. The best moment has the big boys trying to talk about life without Tony, which immediately breaks down into a territorial dispute. Vito gets off a line about the new-dead Gene possibly having been a closet case, which is interesting in light of what we are about to learn about Vito.",Positive "This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.",Negative "Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.",Negative "Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?

'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.

The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.

Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.

Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.

A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.

Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.

Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.

He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.

In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.

The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.

At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.

Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love.

Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.

Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.

I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.

The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.

At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?

Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.

If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?",Negative "First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.",Positive "Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.

Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.

",Negative "Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.

The original ""Sleepaway Camp"" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it.",Negative "This is one of the worse movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish I could travel back in time and do the following:

1) Find out where the ""movie"" ""War Games- The Dead Code"" was filmed 2) Watch the original WAR GAMES with my current computer knowledge AND the eyes of a 1983 preteen. 3) Break into the pentagon computer in the 80's with the knowledge and perspective learned and remembered. 4) Reprogram the WHOPPER to NUKE the location of THE DEAD CODE minutes prior to its first day of filming 5) Come back to the present, have a beer and get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to ""flash"" my memory blank of the whole event, especially my original viewing of ""The Dead Code"" 6) Have another beer and watch WARS GAMES 7) Be happy until the next bad remake of a GOOD 80's movie.

8) Did I forget the have Jar Jar killed. I am not sure if I would have to travel into the future for that. Maybe I need access to a wormhole.",Negative "I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a ""veggie monster"" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate ""veggie monster"" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show.",Negative "After some internet surfing, I found the ""Homefront"" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program ""Nightline"", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.

To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.

As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a ""homefront"" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show ""Homefront"" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of ""Gilligan's Island"" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil ""whites"" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for ""Homefront"". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical ""frightened / angry black family"". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.

In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.

Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.",Negative "OK, so Soldier isn't deep and meaningful like Blade Runner or as big budget as Terminator 2 but on the whole I found it quite enjoyable.

The fact that Kurt Russell stayed in character not speaking and being virtually emotionless made the moments when his humanity broke through all the more poignant. I found his portrayal of restricted emotional development more touching than Arnie's in the T films (and before I get comments yes I know that Arnie was a cyborg and Kurt was human but the premise put forward by both films was the same).

So to the film itself, a reasonable US/Brit cast are able to flesh out this little story. Not really sure if Gary Busey and his two deputies were baddies or goodies, so was unable to decide whether I liked them or not. The colony was a little more realistic neither a misguided bunch of peace loving/gullible/cowardly hicks who get wiped out from the get go nor a group of subversive aggressive terrorists paranoid about offworlders and each other.

Kurt Russell is good and unlike other comments I do not feel this will have a negative impact on his career (unlike maybe Escape from LA - sequels are such fickle creatures!). Sean Pertwee has really done his late father proud by continuing the families noble Sci-Fi lineage. And the rest of the cast helped flesh out this pathetic band of people making the most of a bad situation and not doing too badly.

If you see this on your TV schedule I would recommend giving it a chance. I don't think you will be disappointed.",Positive "Bo is Jane Parker, whose long-lost anthropologist father (Richard Harris, in the worst role of a very inconsistent career) is in Africa studying something or another. She tracks him down (how?) and he tells her of the natives' stories of a giant monster whose nightly howling can be heard throughout the jungle. Turns out to be the Ape Man himself (Miles O'Keeffe, who has the film's best dialogue), who rescues her from bad guys and falls in love with her, leaving them just enough time in this agonizing two hours to romp naked while a horny monkey looks on and cheers. Normally I'm very open-minded to varying opinions about any film, but this is the sole exception. This is the worst film ever made. If you don't agree, you haven't seen it. (Notes: Newsday called it ""unendurable,"" which is the best one-word summary I can think of. The Maltin Movie Guide comments that they almost had to think of a rating lower than BOMB.)",Negative "It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived ""Dirty Dozen"" TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).

I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in ""The Green Berets"" pretty much sums it up.

Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head.

I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a ""1"" right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than ""The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission"".

Awful - avoid!!!!",Negative "There's so many negative reviews about ""Stay away, Joe"" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.

Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.

In my books ""Stay away, Joe"" definitely falls into the ""so bad it's good""-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate ""the trash value"", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.",Negative "When I saw this movie first, it was long ago on VHS-Video. I did like this movie, because it was funny and excitingly. Some years ago I saw another movie, called: *Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure* In this movie were parts of *Wizards of the lost kingdom* used in. They called this movie ""KOR the conquerer"". I began to search for the ""KOR""-Movie many years, because I wanted to see the complete movie, not only the parts which were used in the *Andy Colby*-Movie. No shop had this Kor-Movie to rent and no shop did know this movie. Many years I watched my old VHS-tapes I had at home, and what a wonder... I had this movie since many years still at home, but the movie had a different title, because in Germany it has 3 or 4 titles. So I was happy to find this tape at home and this time I had much more time in watching *KOR the Conquerer again. The music is great during the hole movie, but the best part of filming in combination with the music is this moment, when KOR is walking drunken through the green forrest. The music in the background had some kind of magic. I like Bo Svenson, and also the boy, who played Simon in the movie. Both of them did their job very good. Manfred Kraatz, Germany, 26.10.2004. Thanks to all for reading my comment.",Positive "William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.

The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances.

It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.

I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.

Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.

As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can.",Positive "Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.

Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.

Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.

Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated.",Positive "This adaptation of M.R. James's short story 'A View From A Hill' was first shown on British television in 2005, on the little watched digital channel BBC 4. I saw that it was being repeated again on BBC 4, and decided to give it a go, remembering the BBC's successful 1970's adaptations of other M.R. James stories including 'Whistle And I'll Come To You My Lad' and 'The Signalman'. Though not in the same class as these masterpieces, 'A View From A Hill' is nonetheless an enjoyable and at times suspenseful drama.

A historian arrives in a small rural village to look over the collection of a recently deceased collector of antique artifacts. Whilst out in the countryside, he sees an abbey that has been in ruins for hundreds of years. But what does this have in connection with an old pair of binoculars and a gruesome legend about the ominously named Gallows Hill? And what do the brusque country squire and his servant know about the situation? Whilst not scary in any way, I enjoyed this little production, and had the running time been longer than 40 minutes it could have become a truly great adaptation. As it is, it all feels a little rushed and a bit more exposition to set the mood would have been welcome.

I give it 7 out of 10.",Positive "I've seen a slew of ""80s rocker horrors"" over the years, from rubbish like ""Terror on Tour"" to ridiculously fun gems like ""Slumber Party Massacre 2."" Somehow I managed to keep putting this one off, which is strange because it's probably the most popular and well received one. Well, I finally caught up with it and it's easily the best of this mostly awful (but almost always endearing!) subgenre. The plot (which was pretty much lifted in the film ""Black Roses"") concerns a mulleted misfit named Eddie, whose ridiculed by all in his high school for his taste in music. He loves 80s metal, especially his idol Sammi Curr (played by the late great Tony Fields.) After Sammi is killed, Eddie favorite radio DJ gives him Sammi's final recording. Once Eddie plays the record backwards, he discovers he's a bit tougher, and bad things start happening to those who taunt him. Is Sammi's music possessed? ""Trick or Treat"" is well-made and a total hoot. The special effects are awesome, even though it does feature the typical 80s laser beams. I grew up in the 80s, and while I wasn't a fan of heavy metal, I do remember the urban legend about playing a record backwards hearing the sounds of Satan worshipping. Haha! I also remember being told by my older siblings and neighbors that both KISS and Ozzy worshipped Satan, so it's very amusing to see them both make cameos as a harmless radio DJ and a anti-rock priest. If only I had seen this film as a kid! While the film seems to poke fun at the popular connection in the 80s between alleged devil worship and heavy metal, the viewer never really finds out why Sammi Curr is back from the dead creating havoc and killing whoever gets in his way. This is movie's weakest point, but if you can overlook that, it's loads of fun.",Positive "Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.

So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.

The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).

If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.",Negative "Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many ""Best Of…"" film lists.

I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.

Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.

Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.

Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)",Negative "Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!",Negative "Daniell Steel's Daddy, what a refreshing story. This movie glorified the importance of the family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children. How rare is that? In these times of ""Heather has two Mommies"" (or what ever, you fill in the blanks) it is easy to see why this theme is not for everyone. With the father's roles being prominent I was hoping this would be another Daniell Steel Saga. How disappointing to have it end. Every character was important and did a fabulous job carrying their role. I would have loved to see each character develop over the years. I loved this movie, it is one I will defiantly watch every time it's on. Good story, good acting, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, but no obtrusive sex or bad language. Yes it touched my heart. Warning, get the Kleenex ready. What I find sad is that this side of family life is rarely depicted today in our entertainment, be it Television or. Movie's. Daniell if your listening, You Go Girl, give us more.",Positive "This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.

At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.

This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of ""Beneath the Planet of the Apes"". Here's how I would have written it:

An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.

But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.",Negative "SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an ""extreme"" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create ""shock-value"". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of ""shock"" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.

SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates ""hoo-uhs"" (that's ""whores"" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...

The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10",Negative "This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.",Negative "The plot certainly seemed interesting enough. How can a real-life brutal murder be turned into a truly boring movie? Well, you can watch ""Wonderland"" and find out.

I had heard of the Wonderland murders before this film was released and found it to be an interesting true story of some genuinely sadistic people. Unfortunately, there is zero character development, so we never get a chance to understand why any of this was done or get a good sense of the interrelationships between the characters. The pace of the direction was very tedious. This all leads to an extraordinarily boring movie.

Given that Dawn Schiller - a central character as Holmes's girlfriend - was an associate producer and that Holmes's wife was a consultant on the film, we should have had the opportunity to gain some real insight into the characters.",Negative "I loved this film! I'm a true Tom Hanks fan, and I have always been impressed with all of his work. From his most dramatic roles like Cast Away, The Green Mile, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 & Philadelphia. To his hilarious roles like A League of Their Own, Turner and Hooch, Catch Me If You Can, The Lady Killers, Big & of course Toy Story. But in this film Hanks isn't the only great actor who lights up the screen. Tyler Hoechlin, an up and coming star who shows great promise in Hollywood co stars as Hanks son and delivers nothing short of a great performance. He is certainly someone to watch out for over his career, I believe he will do great things. Paul Newman as always delivers a brilliant performance on screen. He is truly a legend. We can't forget the people who didn't have such big roles in the film, but still helped make it great. The beautiful & very talented Jennifer Jason Leigh, who's performance in Bastard Out of Carolina & Single White Female I will never forget, brings her grace to the screen as Hank's wife in the film and does a superb job. Liam Aiken is another found treasure in film. He does such a great job with such a small role, and like his roles in Lemony Snickets, and Sweet November, and I Dreamed Of Africa he gives a great performance.",Positive "Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it ""entertainment"". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.",Negative "I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams ""Afterschool special"". Anyhoo.

Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.

We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.

But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering ""Jay Jay, what am I doing here?"" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.

Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.",Negative "Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, ""The Raft"", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is ""The Hitch-hiker"", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. ""The Hitch-hiker"" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the ""creep"" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.",Negative "I was in such high hopes of seeing an adaptation of a classic story like the Arabian Nights. Instead i was disappointed in a film that failed to keep my attention from the very beginning, even though i tried watching it twice!!

It was a bonus that Caradine was in this movie but it didn't amount to much as the actors lacked likability. For something a little similar Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Bandaras is much better for action, comic moments and overall enjoyability.

OK, so Son of the Dragon has many possible fans out there, but if your looking for something to wow about in terms of martial arts and plot line you wont get it. If you just want the kids to settle down on a Sunday afternoon then maybe this it for you along with the 3 ninjas.",Negative "Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)

The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati

Let the world know",Negative "I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a ""good"" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the ""Time Machine"" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.",Negative "When i looked at this years Wrestlemania's match card, i was SO stoked and unable to control myself because i was full of excitement.

It starts...and it ends.

I'm sitting there, angry to hell because of how much i wanted my money back. I mean, you watch Wrestlemania 22 (one of my favorites) which will go down as a classic and then you expect the same and get the average garbage they have every now and then. The one moment in the entire show that ruined it for me was when HBK tapped out!!!! That very moment of HBK losing to JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!! John Cena is such a loser/poser. It almost ruined Wrestlemania 22 for me when he beat TRIPLE H! I couldn't watch WWE after seeing Wrestlemania 23. I'm starting to watch it again (luckily). I again have faith in WWE after Wrestlemania 24 (the greatest i have ever seen) which was a pure classic Wrestlemania. It definitely made up for 'Mania 23 and gave us lots of memorable moments as well.

If you have watched ANY of the Wrestlemanias before this one, like the ones that turn you into fans (Wrestlemania 20 turned me into a fan), PLEASE don't watch this and make the same mistake i made and leave WWE behind. And if you DO watch it and are angry, start watching it again and watch Wrestlemania 24, it is absolutely classic.",Negative "Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.

Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.

Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically ""kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door"" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.

Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.

Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.

Family fun for everyone.",Positive "This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.",Negative "You have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really great, it is a 10 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so poor, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are an excellent way to wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie ""An inconvenient truth"" mainly made of long monologues, painfully and with ""truths"" not always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already.

The best thing you can do on earth is not miss Earth.",Positive "Genteel, softly spoken drama from Steven Spielberg was his first real venture into this genre. A departure from his normal adventure/fantasy fare, it paved the way for his 1993 success, ""Schindler's List"".

Based upon Alice Walder's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, the story concerns a young girl's arranged marriage of hardship to a brutal, angry farmer and her painful separation from her beloved younger sister Nettie. While the plot - about compassion, abuse and the power of love to heal all wounds - is often powerful and moving, it loses its way through the fault of continuity and Menno Meyjes' scrambling screenplay. ""The Color Purple"" is at times hard to follow and on one or more occasions tends to be a little erratic in regard to time frame. This lapse in scripting has cost the viewer the depth and detail obviously present in Miss Walker's novel. A real shame that maestro Spielberg was unable to pick out and rectify these problems, as most of the show is a wonderful example of his prowess as a director.

Performances are strong throughout, with Whoopi Goldberg making a debut - which she's never matched since with regard to acting accomplishment - as the heart broken Celie who just yearns to be loved. Danny Glover lends solid support, though his ""Moses"" was a superior turn for him in ""Places in the Heart"". The standout showing comes from the unheralded Oprah Winfrey as Miss Sophia, the single minded, fighting black woman whose spirit is crushed by a terrible incident involving a patronising, upper class white woman. Good support also from Margaret Avery, Adolph Caesar and Rae Dawn Chong.

Quincy Jones ( co-producer with Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall ) has penned a beautifully melodic score and also provided some original blues for the occasion. Editing from Michael Kahn is sound as always, while director of photography Allen Daviau shows consummate skill in capturing some glorious Southern scenery.

This true affair of the heart will surely bring a tear to your eye, it is just unfortunate we are left with so many unanswered questions.

Wednesday, January 15, 1997 - Video",Positive "You've heard it said to live every moment as if it's your last? Whether it's your last day or not, I beg you not to waste any part of it watching this! Nichole Hiltz provides some nice moments of eye candy (that alas, stays wrapped) and David DeLuise shows why he should stick to the small screen or dog food commercials. A shallow, unrealistic plot with dreadful dialogue means there is no ""Art"" in the ""Art of Revenge"".

",Negative "There are very few movies that are so funny as this one. I was lucky enough to watch this movie at a theater ""reserved"" for movie buffs like me, so it was not so embarrassing sitting there laughing till my jaw was completely sore and my shirt sleeves were all wet from drying my eyes...

At times the story was a bit ""slow"", but that is perhaps for the best - a bit of rest in-between the rolling amongst the aisles (I nearly fell out of the seat...) was most welcome.",Positive "I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.

This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.",Negative """Plan B"" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.

Jon Cryer is the ""star"" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in ""Pretty In Pink"" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.

What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)

This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10",Negative "This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away.",Negative "Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.",Negative OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.

And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.

overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.,Negative "The title of this film nearly put me off watching it. Not being a Manchester United fan, the mere mention of Beckham was a bit off putting, however I put my prejudices behind me and I'm glad I did.

I wasn't expecting much of a film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film sped along with me never looking at my watch and I enjoyed every second of the film. If you liked East is East then you'll love this film. OK so the storyline is nothing new, and the classic storylines are contained within the film but it's all done very funnily, and with a breath of fresh air. The film moves very fast and keeps the audiance entertained. The occaisional funny moments are a good chuckle and not some poor attempt at humour, and best of all it's a good british comedy.",Positive "Antonioni really showed some 'cojones' when he had this movie made. He went to America working under a contract from the most lavish studio (MGM) and he made the most damning portrait of American society i've ever seen. Having seen LA first hand this is the most accurate portrayal of the crowded, overheated and impersonal city. If only Antonioni had met Bill Hicks...

The subsequent burial by the studio is understandable, after such a whopping investment and dismal return. It is sad that people don't get to see this film any more as i believe Antonioni has been proved right. Here he predicts the end of the hippie/civil rights movement in the politics of America. Everyone is much more interested in what goes into their pockets and the relentless expansion of living space into the inhospitable (yet beautiful) desert and beyond. How i would love to see interest in this film re-kindled and a lavish DVD release.

I beseech people to watch Zabriskie Point with an open mind and an open heart. We have a genuinely unique film commenting on a turning point in the history of the most powerful nation on the planet, and we have forgotten about it.

An unexpected gem.",Positive "After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.",Negative "This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.

The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where ""A Chorus Line"" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for ""A Chorus Line,"" which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.

I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?",Negative "PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

***

I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!

Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel ""War and Peace"" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.

The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.

I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases.

But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.

The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others.

And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.

The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts.

So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.

Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?

Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.",Negative "It is a pleasure to see such creativity on TV again. This show is poetic, artistic and good fun. The characters relate well and the writing is not bad (I think it will improve as they get their legs). Definitely worth a look.

The girls steal the show so far in this series. Chuck is adorable as is Olive. The two aunts are a delight. I sincerely hope they write them into bigger parts as they are magic.

Well, that's all the news that is fit to print. Go make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy something fun in an old fashioned way. This is like Dr. Seuss for adults.",Positive "The show's echoed 'bubbling' sound effect used to put me to sleep. A very soothing show. I think I might have slept through the parts where there was danger or peril. I had also heard that some set up shots for a show on sponge divers was shot in Tarpon Springs, Florida. I would assume Lloyd Bridges never dove there. I only remember the show in reruns and although it was never edge-of-the-seat exciting we would make up our own underwater episodes in the lake at my grandmother's house... imagining the echoed bubbling sounds and narrating our adventures in our heads. I thought 'Flipper' had better undersea action. Of course, he had the advantage of being in his natural environment.",Negative "Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.

Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.

The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.

7,5/10",Positive "Imagine that I was about to miss this great cultural event on Swedish TV last night, and it was only because my girlfriend insisted on keeping the TV on (to make it easier for her to fall asleep!) that I came across it (yes I had seen an advert for it previously but of course forgotten about it and looked forward to an 'early night'...).

Anyway - this must surely be a rather unusual idea - to base a film documentary on an interview made with sound only more than 30 years ago. But with animated and other documentary film material it adds up to a really good and insightful portrait of one of the 20th centuries' most appreciated literary artists - Georges Remy a.k.a Hergé.

I for sure will read my Tintin albums with a different eye after having seen this film, which makes it easier to connect the variations in style as well as content with the different periods in Hergé's life (and I can tell you that I will a.s.a.p get the few that I don't have). Of course my perception of the albums has changed over the more than 25 years that I have already been reading them, as has my view about what albums are my favourites, but this adds (at least) one more dimension to them.",Positive "When a man who doesn't have Alzheimer's can't remember how many films he's made, he probably is the world's most prolific director after all. That man is Jesus Franco, the king of so-called 'eurotrash'. His 1980 flick Devil Hunter is as rushed, opaque, stupid, lazy and exploitative in the truest sense of the word (the film's title is misleading, for starters) as any other Franco film I've seen. That makes it sound pretty awful, and it is... Yet Franco does have some kind of inimitable sensibility, a generous way with the baldly outrageous, with nudity and sleaze and violence, and even with his stupid cheap editing which tries to pave over the extreme haste with which all his films were made. The mix of all these elements causes you to ride his films out, even while you're mostly waiting for them to end because they're so very tedious.

Devil Hunter is nigh on incomprehensible for the first half an hour. The kidnap by strangers of a white woman who seems to be a model or film star is intercut with a bunch of native action in South America. There's lots of naked writhing, dancing, and endless repeated zoom-ins on an ugly totem pole. You need to get used to the repetitive zoom-ins and the technique of cutting back to the same shot about three times in a row right away, as these are Franco's main methods of extending a film out to feature length.

The monster who looks like the totem pole is actually kind of scary. He has raw bug eyes and his presence is always signalled on the soundtrack by cacophonous groaning, apparently recorded in an echo chamber. Early in the piece he chews on a native lady strapped to a tree, and it's hard to know what really happens here but I think he ate her stomach (or her genitals, sweet Jesus!).

Anyway, the adventure begins properly when a studly guy and his freaked out Vietnam vet pal are sent to the island to recover the white girl from the kidnappers. The flakey guy has an accent which, as dubbed, is half Brooklyn-American, half English-Liverpudlian and all retarded. All of the dialogue and dubbing is ridiculous and laughable, making for another layer of the film which can somehow hold your interest.

Not too much really happens from here on in, and it happens pretty sluggishly, studded with the odd bit of outrage like a rape. The nebulous action is fleshed out (haha!) by acres of 360 degree nudity from the natives and the two female leads, and even from the monster himself. That he walks around with his penis exposed makes wrestling him an unappetising prospect for the tough guy hero, but it's gotta be done at some point, and it's nice to note that the director will show anyone's genitals on camera.

The best feature of Devil Hunter is the location filming. Franco can be extremely cheap with the structural and story aspects of film-making, but he doesn't muck around with sets. You get real islands, jungles, helicopters and mountains, all in widescreen. This is something that is really cool to experience in these days of crappy CGI sets and backdrops ad nauseam.

Ultimately, issues of recommendation where this film is concerned seem moot. If you're trying to see all the Video Nasties, you will have to watch this at some point, and you'll be made as restless as I was. If you like Franco, you'll watch this anyway. If you fall into neither of the above categories, the odds are you'll never come across this film. Copies of it aren't just lying around, and I could hardly recommend the seeking out of it. It's Franco. Lazy, crazy Franco.",Negative "I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.",Negative "I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. ""Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus."" I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused ""tension"" with ""boredom"".

I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.

So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's ""bloodthirsty"" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.

Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.

The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says ""I'm in pain, shoot me"". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.

(Rhetorical pause.)

In the stomach. ""Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP.""",Negative "Gerard Phillipe is absolutely perfect in this movie, funny, tender, brave and lover.He gives a superior dimension to a movie which is even a masterpiece, as much by the other actors (Gina Lollobrigida:miaoooou!!) as by the story or the rhythm. Never boring, always creating new emotions: for me, the best french movie of all time.",Positive "This was excellent. Touching, action-packed, and perfect for Kurt Russel. I loved this movie, it deserves more than 5.3 or so stars. This movie is the story of an obsolete soldier who learns there is more to life than soldiering, and people who learn that there is a time for fighting, a need to defend. I cried, laughed and mostly sat in awe of this story. Good writing job for an action flick, and the plot was appropriate and fairly solid. The ending wasn't twisty, but it was still excellent. If you like escape from New York, or rooting for the underdog, this movie is for you. Not an undue amount of gore or violence, it was not difficult to watch in that respect. Something for everyone.",Positive "I had the distinct misfortune of catching up on two of 2004's worst films back to back this morning: first, the incoherent CGI-driven emptiness of The Chronicles of Riddick, and then, the embarrassing vanity project known as Greendale. One cost multimillions and the other cost pennies, but they're both bad. Really, really bad.

Up front I should state I'm not the world's biggest Neil Young fan, but he has contributed his share of classic tunes: from Buffalo Springfield (whose best recordings were Young compositions) to Rust Never Sleeps, Harvest, and Mirror Ball, the man has penned some really great songs. Sadly, there are no great songs in Greendale, and precious few good ones, and the film around which they are built is truly cringeworthy and simplistic political sloganeering. Completely without merit as art and unimpressive as polemic, Greendale is best left forgotten. Buy the book if you feel compelled to contribute to Young's bank account.",Negative "I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.

The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)

Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.

Just awful.",Negative "No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say ""_____"" is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - Ed

Uh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait",Positive This movie made me very happy. It's impossible not to love the smart and sweet orphan girl who changes the heart of a selfish lawyer only interested in pursuing success in her career. This is a very optimistic movie and I sincerely believe that we need more films like Curly Sue. It touched my heart.,Positive """FULL HOUSE,"" in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. One of my favorite episodes is where Jesse (John Stamos) and Rebecca (Lori Loughlin) get married. If you want to know how what made it so funny, you'd have to have seen it for yourself. It was a two-parter, so you'd have to have seen both parts. Another one of my favorite episodes is where Jesse, Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen) get locked in a gas station on Michelle's birthday. You'd also have to have seen it for yourself if you want to know how and why that happened. I have many other ones that I like, too. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.",Positive "The Flock is unjustly maligned as a lesser ""Se7en"" ripoff. There's really no reason to compare the two, except maybe for the similar scenery in the final showdown.

Now that that's out of the way I'll go into why The Flock is very interesting in some respects. Mostly it's a drama piece rather than a full blown thriller about a very vigilant social worker who monitors sexual offenders. At the very beginning you can clearly see his work has got the better of him. Evident in two scenes where first he's interviewing an offender and slaps him around and second when a woman tries to pick him up and all he can think of are his standard questions from his questionnaire.

Gere is very good as Errol Babbage, the aforementioned social worker. His way of performing his job is not unlike that of a police officer, he carries a gun and is constantly checking newspapers and supplies law officials with information if some of his ""flock"" may be responsible for a sexual crime. He's also a person who's lost all happiness of living and his only relief seems to come from exacting his own vigilante justice on his flock. Twice you see him smile, once when he's apologizing for treating his partner rudely and the other after he's beaten up a member of his flock.

As a suspense flick, The Flock isn't as successful. Somewhat confusing and with some irritating plot holes but it does have a number of striking set pieces.

Overall The Flock is a solid drama about a man performing a dehumanizing job and in the end he has to work hard to keep from being swallowed by the abyss he's surrounded himself in. The world we live in is a pretty sick place and the further one can distance himself from the worst the happier that person is. The Flock gets that point across nicely.",Positive "I've watched this movie a second time to try to figure out why it wasn't as successful (commercially or artistically) as it should have been, and discovered considerable artistic merit--which may ultimately have been its commercial undoing.

First of all, this movie attempts ""serious"" science-fiction, social commentary, more than action-adventure. There is action in it, but that's not really what it's about. If you focus on that, you'll end up with (as others have noted) a bad ""Aliens"" clone. But, again, that's not what it's about.

The movie is really about Todd's (Kurt Russell) transformation from human to near-machine and back to human (mostly *back*). But because it's not trying to give you a typically glib Hollywood style answer, Kurt Russell must make this transformation without speaking, and largely without broad expressions. And he really does a wonderful job--it can take two viewings to appreciate it.

The surrounding ""social logic"" is flawed and it's never adequately explained whether Todd's ability to hold his own against an army of supposedly superior troops comes from his experience on the battlefield or his newfound human-ness or what, but the movie still makes a marvellous showcase for Russell's (easy to underestimate) talent.",Positive "Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these ""ladies"" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the ""good news""! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!

As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this ""movie""!",Negative "Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.

Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...

Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0250274/ ) Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd ""boys talking crap"", but it comes across as forced...

I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.

Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.

Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..

It always rubs me up the wrong way when a ""comedy"" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...

I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....

That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....

My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!!",Negative "One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.

In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.

This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.

Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.

It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.

The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies.",Negative "

A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.

I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.

He knows I am serious!

",Negative "Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.

The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary.

If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.

This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared.",Positive "Excellent show. Instead of watching the same old sitcom type shows where it's the same old thing, just different ""stars"", this refreshing show provided an incredibly entertaining view of office situations. We have been away from watching any television for 2 years and after coming back, of all the shows available we look forward to watching this show on W. Shame on Global for pulling the plug on this one. I thought this one would be a winner. Let's be realistic about things, FEW Canadian SHOWS make it. Everyone I talk to enjoys this show and I believe it was foolish of Global to walk away. I guess they want to stick it out with the typical mind numbing shows from the States instead of pulling behind a Canadian made show that had a lot of promise. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lot of shows on TV, but, come on people, let's keep the variety. This unique show provided a very comedic view of a slightly exaggerated realistic side of office life and relationships, with unique characters that you don't see on any sitcoms today or in the past. Too bad that global had to say no to this one, foolish mistake.",Positive "When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.",Negative "This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.

So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.",Positive "In 1983, Director Brian De Palma set out to make a film about the rise and fall of an American gangster, and that he did-- with the help of a terrific screenplay by Oliver Stone and some impeccable work by an outstanding cast. The result was `Scarface,' starring Al Pacino in one of his most memorable roles. The story begins in May of 1980, when Castro opened the harbor at Mariel, Cuba, to allow Cuban nationals to join their families in the United States. 125,000 left Cuba at that time, for the greener pastures of freedom in America, and most were honest, hard-working people, thankful for the opportunity they had been granted. But not all. Among the `Marielitos' who streamed into Florida, approximately 25,000 had criminal records and were nothing less than the dregs of Cuba's jails-- criminals considered beyond redemption, who Castro had merely wanted to be rid of. And they, too, saw America as a land of opportunity, even as Al Capone had considered Chicago some fifty years earlier. And among the most ambitious was a man named Tony Montana (Pacino), known to his associates as `Caracortada.' Scarface.

Now that he was free of the yoke of Communism under which he had grown up, Montana wanted what he felt was coming to him, and he wanted it now; and from the moment he stepped off the boat in Florida, he was determined to have it all. Wealth and power-- that was Montana's dream, and he would get it by doing what he did best, beginning with a favor for a man living in Miami by the name of Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez, it seems, had a brother in Cuba who had met an untimely end at the hands of one of Castro's goons, a man who, having outlived his usefulness to Castro, had been summarily discarded and was currently being held in `Little Havana,' along with Montana and all of the Cubans just off the boats, where they awaited their papers from the government that would effect their transition into their new lives. And in short order, Montana sees to it that Lopez's brother has been avenged, and it sets the stage for his own entrance into the underworld of America.

Lopez, a wealthy businessman with the right connections, in return for the favor gets Montana and his friend, Manny (Steven Bauer), released from the holding camp, and puts them to work. In his day, Capone may have had bootlegging as a means through which to line his coffers with illicit gain, but Lopez has the modern day equivalent, and it's even more lucrative: Cocaine. Lopez takes Montana under his wing and indoctrinates him into the life, but once he has a taste of it, Montana isn't satisfied with whatever crumbs Lopez sees fit to throw his way, and he sets a course that will take him to where he wants to be: At the `top.' With a cold-blooded, iron will, Montana decides he'll do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the cost. but before it's over, he will realize the price for his dream, and he'll pay it; but for a brief moment, perhaps he will know what it's like to be The Man. And he will also know whether or not it was worth it.

In step with De Palma's vision, Pacino plays Montana larger-than-life, and he does it beautifully. From the accent he affects (which he researched thoroughly to make sure he got it right-- and he did), to the body language and the attitude, he's got it all, and it makes Montana convincing and very real. What he brings to the role is nuance and style, in a way that few actors (De Niro would be one) can. This is definitely not a character that is sympathetic in any way, nor is there anything about Montana that you can readily relate to on a personal level; but Pacino's screen presence is so strong that it makes him a thoroughly engrossing character, even though it's hard to become emotionally involved with him. It's quite simply a dynamic, memorable performance.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid performance, as well, in the role that put her on the path to stardom. As Elvira, the woman who becomes an integral part of Montana's dream, Pfeiffer is subtle and understated, giving that sense of something going on underneath, while affecting a rather cold and distant exterior countenance. She, like Pacino, definitely makes her presence felt as she fairly glides across the screen with a stoic, enigmatic and sultry demeanor.

The supporting cast includes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Sosa) and Harris Yulin (Bernstein). An excellent precursor to the more recent and highly acclaimed `Traffic,' and `Blow,' and well as having a climactic scene reminiscent of Peckinpah's `The Wild Bunch,' De Palma's `Scarface,' originally panned by critics, has since been cited by many as being the definitive American gangster saga. Much of the violence is implied rather than graphic, but this film still has an edge of realism to it that many may find somewhat disturbing. But if you stay with it, there is a lesson to be learned in the end. And like many lessons in life, the most valuable are often the hardest to take at the time. But the reward is always worth it, and that's the way it is with this film. I rate this one 8/10.





",Positive """Raising Victor Vargas"" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to ""Pause"" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze.

It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?

And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them.

And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy ""jerking off"". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors?

So ""Victor Vargas"" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the ""fast forward"" button.",Negative "I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of ""Blackboard Jungle""). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - ""Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies""!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film ""Hell Drivers""). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the ""Firefly"". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.",Positive "I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!

Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the ""rise to the top"" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.

Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people ""singing"" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big ""love me"" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!

AND note to all involved--that ""sing-talking dialog"" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that ""I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!"" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't ""songs.""

Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release ""one to beat"" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype!",Negative "I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.",Negative "What can one say about a film that has one of the blackest, most nihilistic, and occasionally most weirdly -I wont say 'sympathetic'..I will say 'charismatic' villains in the history of the Cinema, and the best sword fight since Flynn and Fairbanks were in their heyday? This is an epic about a stubborn, sometimes foolish, incredibly courageous and honest mans fight for his honor and freedom against tyranny. I loved it. John Hurt and Tim Roth were great villains. Jessica Lange was very moving, tender, and sensual.",Positive "Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.

Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the ""girl-friends"", dead-set on terminating this ""silly relationship"", go over and beyond the call of duty in ""helping out"" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game"".

A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time.",Negative "So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, ""Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30."" Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of ""Open House"" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's ""independent"" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.",Negative "1958. The sleepy small Southern town of Clarksburg. Evil Sheriff Roy Childress (the almighty Vic Morrow in peak nasty form) cracks down super hard on speeders by forcing said offenders off a cliff to their untimely deaths on an especially dangerous stretch of road. Childress meets his match when cool young hot rod driver Michael McCord (a splendidly smooth and brooding portrayal by Martin Sheen) shows up in town in his souped-up automobile with the specific intention of avenging the death of his brother (Sheen's real-life sibling Joe Estevez in a brief cameo). Director Richard T. Heffron, working from a taut and intriguing script by Richard Compton (the same guy who directed the 70's drive-in movie gems ""Welcome Home, Soldier Boys"" and ""Macon County Line""), relates the gripping story at a brisk pace, neatly creates a flavorsome 50's period setting, and ably milks plenty of suspense out the tense game of wit and wills between Childress and McCord. The uniformly fine cast helps a lot: Sheen radiates a brash James Deanesque rebellious vibe in the lead, Morrow makes the most out of his meaty bad guy part, plus there are excellent supporting performances by Michelle Phillips as sweet diner waitress Maggie, Stuart Margolin as a folksy deputy, Nick Nolte as amiable gas station attendant Buzz Stafford, Gary Morgan as Buzz's endearingly gawky younger brother Lyle, Janit Baldwin as sassy local tart Sissy, Britt Leach as stingy cab driver Johnny, and Frederic Downs as the stern Judge J.A. Hooker. The climactic vehicular confrontation between Childress and McCord is a real pulse-pounding white-knuckle thrilling doozy. Terry K. Meade's sharp cinematography, the well-drawn characters (for example, Childress became obsessed with busting speeders after his wife and kid were killed in a fatal hit and run incident), the groovy, syncopated score by Luchi De Jesus, and the beautiful mountainside scenery all further enhance the overall sound quality of this superior made-for-TV winner.",Positive "I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do.",Positive "For anyone with a moderate sensibility, a moderate feeling of the human and humane condition, for anyone capable of getting above the Hollywood ilk, for anyone who is satisfied seeing cinema which does not have a series of Seagals/Willis/Van Dammes blasting the brains out of anybody or seeing who gets into bed with whom, for anyone whose intellectual level reaches a capacity to grasp, sympathise with, comprehend, laugh WITH, cry WITH natural tender heart-warming hilarious compassionate HUMAN BEINGS, `Le Huitième Jour' is waiting for you. Jaco van Dormael has not achieved simply a masterpiece, that would have been too simplistic; he has achieved one of those rare monumental works of art in the cinematographic world which defies any kind of encapsuling. Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? No: it is the story of Georges, a wonderful funny pitiful laughable loving frightened beautiful personality, a sufferer of the Downes Syndrome. It is a story which has you laughing through your tears, but this is not one of those classic tear-jerkers; this film moves through a world that has you at once mixing your feelings of compassion or pity or even shame with those of admiration, warmth and even love. A successful banking salesman, Harry, bumps into Georges: they were both going in opposite directions with absolutely opposing ideas, problems and priorities; skillfully van Dormael melts these two unlikely men into a warm friendship, but which is so much more than the good buddy friendship of those having a beer down the road. This is a relationship which develops into a profound needing by both for the other. The cuasi-surrealist scenes fit in perfectly: Georges recalls (or invents) past scenes of his life while either day-dreaming or sleeping; even the almost phantasmagorical final scene is totally correct. The only scene which might be considered a little out of place is when they steal a bus and drive it out of the show-rooms. However, this does not detract from the whole. This film is a monument. Even if your French is not up to much, please bear seeing it with sub-titles. `Le Huitième Jour' is worth the trouble. As for anything else, well, just read the following commentaries – I go along with all of them. This film is a joy, it is majestic, it is unique. If you have seen `Rain Man' which I consider an excellent film, you must see this one: it is far superior because it has not the superficial veneer of famous Hollywood-produced world-renowned actors; it has Pascal Duquenne and Daniel Auteuil – TEN oscars for these two, and three more for Jaco van Dormael. Who cares…………? Yes: 11 out of 10 if the IMDb rating doesn't break down under the strain.

Magnifique! Chapeau!",Positive "If I had just seen the pilot of this show I would have rated it a 10. I was immediately hooked on this gorgeous new world. Subsequent episodes have not completely lived up to the promise, but I will keep watching and hope that it keeps getting better. The production values are incredible and the acting is first-rate. I don't mind that it doesn't seem to align perfectly with BSG because I am so intrigued by the premise and let's face it, they are two different shows. I'm thrilled that both Esai Morales and one of my all-time faves, Eric Stoltz, are back in my life (if only weekly) as I've missed them both. This is a show that requires a bit of thought from its audience and that is always a good thing. You kind of have to wrap your head around certain aspects of the show; things are not always as they seem and certainly there are shades of gray, both literally and figuratively, in plot lines, characters and, of course, the various virtual worlds. We all know how it ends, but the journey is looking to be quite a ride.",Positive """Cinderella"" is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...

The story of ""Cinderella"" on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since ""Cinderella"" is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.

The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for ""Alice in Wonderland"", ""Peter Pan"", ""The Three Caballeros"" and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.

Overall, ""Cinderella"" ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true.",Positive "Yeah,it's low budget. Yeah,it's one of Candy's earliest films, but it is maybe his funniest! John Candy was not so far removed from his SCTV days in ""Going Berserk"" and it shows. If you don't crack up when Candy tries to help a guy with his groceries while being hand-cuffed to an escaped cohort in the process of having sex with his girlfriend with only the apartment door separating them (huh?, see the movie!), or the way Euguene Levy (the creator of Kong Fu Yu) is talking to his mom on the phone, or just the countless number of facial expressions that only Candy could deliver you better check your pulse! If you like the John Candy of ""Only the Lonely"" this is may not be a movie I would advise you to see, but if you enjoy the SCTV days of John Candy, this movie is a must see!",Positive "When I saw the elaborate DVD box for this and the dreadful Red Queen figurine, I felt certain I was in for a big disappointment, but surprise, surprise, I loved it. Convoluted nonsense of course and unforgivable that such a complicated denouement should be rushed to the point of barely being able to read the subtitles, let alone take in the ridiculous explanation. These quibbles apart, however, the film is a dream. Fabulous ladies in fabulous outfits in wonderful settings and the whole thing constantly on the move and accompanied by a wonderful Bruno Nicolai score. He may not be Morricone but in these lighter pieces he might as well be so. Really enjoyable with lots of colour, plenty of sexiness, some gory kills and minimal police interference. Super.",Positive "And I don't say it in a bad way.

I watched this movie at the cinema when I was 6 or 7. For me and my cousins it was magical, beautiful and scary at the same time. When we left the theatre, Michael was our best friend even though we knew he had no idea about it.

Over the years, I saw this movie being aired a few times but I always changed the channel. Even seeing a few seconds of it would bring back that feeling of magic and warm my heart. And I liked it that way.

So I've only seen this movie once and I believe it was a good decision not to watch it again. If I saw it today, I know I couldn't help but criticise MJ's acting, the plot (if there was one) and this and that. For me this is a childhood memory, so my feelings towards it are those of a child from 20 years ago.

I see my adult self intervenes in my rating and gives it an 8 for the memories and wonderful music. For that little kid who watched it in awe 20 years ago though, this is definitely worthy of a 10.",Positive "All Kira Reed fans MUST see this. The film's premise has struggling romance novelist Kira unable to come up with any new ideas. She's also getting over a divorce. However, she meets this guy at a restaurant and he helps her out of her shell (and clothing). They go into a corner room and they do it. Thankfully, Kira gets a condom out (Now don't ever tell me these Playboy films are worthless piles of soft-core fluff. Remember kids, safe sex). Later, she marvels to her publishist how great it was, but she didn't get his name. Despite this, the guy finds her and they continue their kinky games. But eventually she tires of his sneakiness and wants to know more. When she does, all hell breaks loose, and I'll leave it at that. This is easily the best of these soft-core Playboys films I've seen. Check this out, and marvel at the greatness of Kira.",Positive "this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!",Negative "BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!

The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.

If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.

I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.

Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.",Negative "The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These ""valuable"" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil ""truth haters"" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.

It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by ""evil"" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.

Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.

We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the ""old religion"" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.

New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.

But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly.",Negative "Though I did not begin to read the ""Classics"" in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC.",Positive "I'd passed this title 15 or 20 times while in Blockbuster, looking for something halfway decent to watch. All I can say is that they were all out halfway decent films the night I chose to rent this.

I will give it credit for being leaps and bounds better than ""Dracula 3000"", but in actuality that's pretty easy to say since this one DIDN'T have Caper Van Dien in it. The other things it lacked in spades were: an interesting cast, interesting story, good dialog and originality, but I suppose you can't have everything.

***SPOILERS AHEAD*** The misfit crew of vampire hunters (one of which was a vampire... go figure) flew around from mining colony to mining colony trying to wipe out all the vampires it could find. The crew consists of: the cocky, ne'er-do-well captain (who dies early on), his by-the-book, yet inexperienced first mate, the aforementioned vampire vampire hunter (not a typo), a wannabe cowboy and a REALLY, REALLY butch Asian commando, ""tough guy"" female... it almost sounds like the cast for MTV's 'The Real World'. After the captain dies in a violent confrontation with a mob of bloodsuckers (and as it turns out, lovers of the finer parts of human anatomy) his first mate takes over... blah, blah, blah... everyone hates him... blah, blah, blah... I could go on, but as I said it's the same storyline used in about a hundred other 'films' of the genre.

The effects were cheese and why Michael Ironside was in this movie is beyond me. The vampire vampire hunter (still not a typo) was pretty hot, but of course if you're waiting for her to expose more than just her cleavage, look elsewhere.

I can't say that it was the worst film I've seen, as I actually rented 'Starship Troopers 2', but wait for this one to come on the Sci-Fi Channel.",Negative "May contain spoilers.

I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.

This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.

Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.

All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.",Negative "Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.

I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.

Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.

Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.

The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.

I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made.",Positive "If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in.",Negative """Addictive"" is an adjective I've heard many times when talking of certain TV shows. Most recently, dramas like Lost, Heroes and Prison Break have earned that description. However, as compelling as they may be (and they really are) I can wait a few days before I see the next episode of either series, even Prison Break which some have lazily classified as ""the new 24"". With all due respect, there can be no such thing, and for a good reason: no other silver-screen thriller is based on a real-time structure. That's what sets 24 apart from any other show, and that's why I practically have to watch an entire season (on DVD) in seven days or less: once the frickin' clock starts ticking, it's impossible to tune out.

An episode whose events unfolded over the course of a single day was a trademark of NYPD Blue (and, more recently, Deadwood); having an entire season of a new series last 24 hours, one per ep (the actual running time is 41 minutes; the remaining 19 are occupied by commercials when the show airs on telly), was the most groundbreaking idea in mainstream television since Hill Street Blues introduced non-linear storytelling (a mandatory element nowadays). And it truly paid off.

Ironically enough, the original plan for the series was to make it revolve around a wedding (fortunately, creators Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran realized the format was more suitable for a conspiracy thriller), which is probably the reason the first glimpse we get of the hero suggests a cheerful atmosphere: looking extremely relaxed, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is enjoying a game of chess with his daughter Kimberly (Elisha Cuthbert) and, minutes later, being tender with Teri (Leslie Hope), the wife with whom he has just reconciled. As in The Sopranos, though, something unexpected and shocking is just behind the corner: not only has Kim snuck out of her room, Jack also receives a phone call urging him to get to work immediately. At midnight? I'm afraid so: Bauer is a CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agent, and his boss has acquired reliable intel about a possible hit on the life of David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), an African-American Presidential candidate who will be in Los Angeles for the whole day (oh, right, I almost forgot: events occur on the day of the California Presidential Primary). No time for napping, then: Jack has to spend the next 24 hours working on the case. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to ignore protocol, and that doesn't sit well with George Mason (Xander Berkeley), a slimy man from Division who has been asked to interfere with the operation.

The plot is very dense, making the show hard to recommend for those with a short attention span, but anyone willing to take a look will be rewarded instantly: the writing is sharp and precise, the attention to detail unsurpassed, and the suspense is consistently sky-high, mainly thanks to the real-time trickery which considerably enhances the adrenaline level.

Another great quality of this pilot is the characterization: most genre shows (sci-fi and thriller) tend to simply introduce the key players and then define them later on (a textbook example is CSI, where character development is minimal, but then again that matches the show's unique style), whereas the series debut of 24 offers a rich array of fully rounded people, among whom Jack (Sutherland's best role - ever!) and Palmer (the real revelation of the show) stand out for being perfectly described after one episode only (the former divided between job and family, reckless but humane, the latter honorable and endowed with great integrity). A couple of supporting parts border on stereotype (Mason and Tony Almeida especially), but two factors ought to be taken into account: a) this is the first episode; b) there's so much going on most viewers won't even complain about a ""flaw"" or two. After all, how many network programs manage to begin with a conspiracy, a missing teenager AND a huge explosion - and still have equally satisfying material for the rest of the season?

Tick, tock, tick, tock...",Positive "I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the ""mole"" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this ""art"" does not imitate life.",Negative """Journey of Hope"" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.",Positive "Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series ""X-Files""- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).

Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book!",Positive "Although I have to admit I laughed more watching this movie than the last few comedies I saw.

The budget must have consisted of pocket change from the actors. The production values are so low that they actual made it kind of fun to watch. Reminds me of the Robot Monster made up of a guy in a gorilla suit with a cardboard diving helmet on.

In one scene a hapless victim gets their arm and leg cut off. Geez, hard to believe but the Black Knight scene from Holy Grail was more realistic. I kept wondering why the victim didn't start shouting "" None Shall Pass"" and "" It's only a flesh wound, I've had worse"". It was one of the funniest scenes I've seen in the past year.

The ""gladiator/demon"" was a stitch too. Between the horribly cheap costume and the geeky look of the guy in it the end result was hysterical.

Truly a movie that is bad enough to be watchable. Kind of like seeing a slow motion auto accident on film.

",Negative "Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's ""father"" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays ""a young Dianne Keaton."" I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next.",Positive "Lost isn't the greatest TV show in history, but it's not far off. It doesn't have the plot or characterisation of The West Wing or possibly even early ER, however, it is arguably the most continuously gripping show I have every come across. I love the way I can't guess what's going to happen. I love the re-telling of the characters' back stories which often give rise to new dimensions for us to see them in. In some ways I want the show to last forever, but I think they can get 6-7 seasons out of it before they have to end it on a glorious high. The combination of the characters and their nationalities coupled with the show's fluidity for moving backwards and forwards thus extending dead characters ""life spans"" all adds to the overwhelming sense that this show is something very different from what we are used to. It's captivating, surprising and (here's a little suggestion for all of you conspiracy theorists) more than a little interactive- keep those internet discussions going- you're only adding to the plot...",Positive "I came in in the middle of this film so I had no idea about any credits or even its title till I looked it up here, where I see that it has received a mixed reception by your commentators. I'm on the positive side regarding this film but one thing really caught my attention as I watched: the beautiful and sensitive score written in a Coplandesque Americana style. My surprise was great when I discovered the score to have been written by none other than John Williams himself. True he has written sensitive and poignant scores such as Schindler's List but one usually associates his name with such bombasticities as Star Wars. But in my opinion what Williams has written for this movie surpasses anything I've ever heard of his for tenderness, sensitivity and beauty, fully in keeping with the tender and lovely plot of the movie. And another recent score of his, for Catch Me if You Can, shows still more wit and sophistication. As to Stanley and Iris, I like education movies like How Green was my Valley and Konrack, that one with John Voigt and his young African American charges in South Carolina, and Danny deVito's Renaissance Man, etc. They tell a necessary story of intellectual and spiritual awakening, a story which can't be told often enough. This one is an excellent addition to that genre.",Positive "NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens.

The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.

The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.

Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.

This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.",Positive "

Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of ""nothing"" out there.

Don't miss this.

",Positive "This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which – like many a genre effort from this country – was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary – and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds – apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings – throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin – the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! – once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight…so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams – to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay!",Negative "It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say ""don't take it seriously"" or ""so bad its good"" or ""it wasn't scary"". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.",Positive "I caught this at a screening at the Sundance Film Festival and was in Awe over the absolute power this film has. It is an examination of the psychological effects on our brave soldiers who join the military with hopes that they will protect and serve our country with honor as well as be taken care of by our government for it. The film details the psychological changes that takes place in boot camp as the soldiers are turned into ""killers for their country"" and put into the war and the after effects once they return home. It also portrays the effect that killing has on the human psyche. It pays homage to the Soldiers and never ever criticizes the soldiers unlike other films, instead criticizes a system that is not prepared to and does not take care of all the physical and psychological needs of the returned Vets.

This film is powerful, moving, emotional and thought provoking. It stands as a call to arms to support our troops not only by buying stickers and going to parades but by actually listening to them, and helping to support a change in the way their health and well being is taken care of after the killing ends.

The best film of the Festival so far, ****/****",Positive "Well, there's no real plot to speak of, it's just an excuse to show some scenes of extreme violence and gratuitous sex (which can sometimes be fun, too, but it's not in this case). What else can I say about this...? The action, when happening, is inventive and there's a cool scene where two characters are falling from a skyscraper (one that has to be several miles high), but overall there's not much to recommend ""Kite"". Watch it if you want, but you're not missing much if you skip this one...",Negative "I hate reading reviews that say something like, 'Don't waste your time, this film stinks on ice.' It does to that reviewer yet for me, it may have some sort of naïve charm. If you like the other 'Whistler' series films, this one will be watchable. If you like 40s noirish films, this one will be watchable.

This film is not as good, in my opinion, as any of the earlier series entries which starred Richard Dix as the protagonist. It's much slower, and the plot is trite. You've seen this same narrative device used in many other films, and usually better.

But the acting is good, and so is the lighting, and the dialog. It's just lacking in energy and you'll likely figure out exactly what's going on and how it's all going to come out in the end not more than a quarter of the way through.

The 'Whistler' series is semi-noir, and there character, mood, lighting, camera movement and angles are more important than the story itself. But this film is not noir. It's too light weight and Hollywood innocent for that. Neither Richard Dix's character nor those of any of his ladies in the previous films had to come to a good end. You just never knew until the end.

But still, I'll recommend this one for at least a single viewing. I've watched it at least twice myself, and got a reasonable amount of enjoyment out of it both times.",Positive "this movie just goes to show that you dont need big explosions,muti-billion dollar computer graphics,or highly over paid actors and actresses to make a good movie, All you need is a excellent story line and plot. which the master of all japanese films,Akira Kurosawa pulls off brilliantly. I recommend this film to all that love a epic period piece. and for those that enjoy Kurosawas earlier works. 10/10",Positive "This film is horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.

The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds.

Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\

Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished ""Oshawa Drive-in"" just before it was torn down.",Negative "i saw this movie the first seconds the voice of T.R. took me on to the journey - well i disliked the big glued thumbs in the beginning, but the absurd humor it and the gordious looks of both sissy actors - i do not know who played the young her - but she was great and so was uma!!! -

the two other people who where in the cinema went out after about half an hour, i was with a friend - and it is always a test to watch a movie i like good with one of my friends - and, we both enjoyed it too the maximum - hilarious laughs - sadness about the ""realistic police- normalos"" . both of us fans of T.Robbins books...i found it well done - thought, that Robbins would also approve, though i do not have an idea if he likes the film or not...

i would love to see the cut out stuff - i heard that gus v. sand had to take out lots of scenes because of the first-time viewers (or the producers???) well still it is an artistic movie. much too short though... it is one of my all time favorites - and i am aware of it that the majority of people can't stand that kind of movie and assume that people who enjoy that films are whatever they think .......what a pity. hopefully there will come the day that there will be a DVD with the full material - hoping to see more of crispian, keanu - expecting to see her baby and all

if you have the chance to see it, think twice, and enjoy it if you made the choice to watch ... m",Positive """The Deadly Look of Love"" is essentially ""Fatal Attraction"" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.

Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.

Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time ""The Deadly Look of Love"" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.",Negative "Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With ""Panic in the Streets"", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, ""On the Waterfront"", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.

Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting ""The Big Easy"". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.

This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like ""broklynese"" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.

One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.

The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.

The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.",Positive "A wonderful film to watch with astonishing scenes and talented actors, such as Misa Shimizu and Nagiko Tono. After 15 minutes of watching, your eyes get locked on the screen and you do nothing but breathing in the atmosphere of the film waiting what the destiny will bring to the characters. This film makes you leave your position as a standard audience, it takes you in, it makes you a part of the story... Costumes and settings are brilliant; especially the district of the okiyas is skillfully built. It is definitely not very Akira Kurosawa, however it still gets a lot from the master, especially the stylistic story telling tells us we're in a distinguished land of cinema which is quite far from hollywoodish flamboyance.",Positive "John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack (""Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'"") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.

Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico ""Ratso"" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.

Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'

Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!""), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.

'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.",Positive "I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie ""Moonraker"" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.

As a cross between ""Pi"", ""Orlando"", and ""Tron"", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in ""Tron."" Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.

The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.

Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.",Negative "Okay this movie fine like I said but you surely need to watch it as its worth a watch . It's about two boys Mac and Sam who are great friends and work as fashion photographers and the laughing time starts when Mac ( Akshay Kumar ) starts dating with 3 air hostesses at the same time leaving his wife suspicious . Sam attains fortune and almost forgets his friend but not completely . But Mac thinks so and so he starts dating with air hostesses . there's garam masala at every step of the movie , songs rock but somethings lacking . The comedy's not up to the mark and deserves an award . Its nice but not all that excellent . Some people laughed till their stomaches ached but it didn't deserve that many laughs . But of course everyone's opinion is different . So if you wanna watch the movie you're welcome to do so .",Positive "This is a gorgeous movie visually. The images of the Mexican desert, the old mansion, the characters in their picturesque costumes...all amount to a real work of art.

The story seems a bit loose, but that's because it's not meant to be realistic. It is taken from a book called One Hundred Years of Solitude, and it is supposed to be an evocation of the isolated, otherworldly atmosphere of Latin America ""so far from God, and so close to the United States"". The tremendous debt that Erendira owes to her grandmother is symbolic of Latin America's international debt burden, although there many layers of meaning.

If you can appreciate a slow-moving, richly-textured movie, this one is for you.",Positive "There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....

This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!",Negative "It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.

Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to ""the rave of the year"" and go to one of the San Juan Islands (""If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived."" - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.

It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!

OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called ""isla del muerto"", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - ""the rave of the year,"" my patoot.

Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.

Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little ""parody"" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.

OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters ""gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing"" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway.",Negative "Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.",Positive "Okay, I know I shouldn't like this movie but I do. From Pat Morita's loveable interpretation of a Japanese stereotype to Jay Leno's annoying yell, I laughed throughout this movie.As long as you take into account that this is not the best movie in the world, it's a good mvie.

My favorite part is Morita talking to his boss in Tokyo with the drinking a close second.",Positive "I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.

Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.

Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10",Negative "How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.",Positive "I loved this show growing up and I still watch the first season DVD at age 19 today. What can I say? I grew up in a house much like the one on Full House. I had a dad, two sisters, and a dog. I guess the only difference was that I did not live with my uncle and my dad's best friend. Also, I grew up with my mom in the house. I don't know what I would have done without Full House on television. I think that Stephanie (played by Jodie Sweetin), D.J. (played by Kirk Cameron's sister Candace), and Michelle (Played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are my favorite characters. I can relate to each of them because I am the middle child of my family like Steph, I am a younger sister like Michelle, and I am an older sister like D.J. I really like how the show always has moral values because I don't really like any of the O.C.-like shows today. I like the comedy of Full House, too. Uncle Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coulier), and Danny (Bob Saget) are hilarious as the girls' uncle, dad's friend, and dad, respectively. The story goes that, after the girls' mom dies, Danny's best friend Joey and his brother-in-law, Jesse move in to help raise the kids. Three men trying to raise three young girls=hilarious. Each character on Full House is full of heart, funny, and genuinely believable. Joey is an aspiring comedian with a kid's heart and soul. Jesse is the cool, motorcycle riding, tough-guy uncle who is softened by his three nieces, and later, his wife Becky (Laurie Laughlin, from Summerville). Both kids and adults will love this show. Guaranteed.",Positive "SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD

Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club, cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to the bathroom?

Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks into their room?

How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don't IMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's and then start going through their stuff?

If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was a murderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a wooden platform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a ratty old barn or other decrepit structure?

I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in the last few years, but since this is the ""The Return"" page, obviously I'm talking about ""The Return."" I saw it free because I work at a movie theater and make a point of screening all the ""scary"" movies. I thought this one was tolerable... aside from the well-worn clichés. Sarah Michelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of ""Huh?"" through most of the film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movie progresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except there wasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost until the last 2/3 of it.

If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. If there's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch a movie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought the trailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait... wait.",Negative "Yes, Shakespeare would indeed have been proud. Laurence Fishburne was not at his best but certainly not bad. Kenneth Brannagh on the other hand was brilliant. His scheming was wonderful as was his toying with the audience. Very nice work.

There were at times too little drama where more would have been expected. Cassio's slaying, for instance, was a bit clouded by too much happening to far apart, causing the spectator to twist his head to grasp it all.

Did I mention Michael Maloney? His madness striken Roderigo was unusual; annoying even.

If you haven't seen Othello before, see this. If you haven't read Othello, see this. If you haven't heard Othello, see this. You do, on the other hand, do yourself a favour by reading it, seeing it acted onstage and hearing it sung too.",Positive "I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting ""guess who"" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it.",Positive "Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of ""family"" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!",Negative "Mukhsin is a beautiful movie about a first love story. Everyone probably has one, and this is writer-director Yasmin Ahmad's story of hers, with a boy called Mukhsin. We know that her movies have been semi-autobiographical of sorts, having scenes drawn upon her personal experiences, and it is indeed this sharing and translating of these emotions to the big screen, that has her films always exude a warm sincerity and honesty. Mukhsin is no different, and probably the most polished ad confident work to date (though I must add, as a personal bias, that Sepet still has a special place in my heart).

Our favourite family is back - Pak Atan, Mak Inom, Orked and Kak Yam, though this time, we go back to when Orked is age 10. The characters are all younger from the movies we've journeyed with them, from Rabun to Gubra, and here, Sharifah Amani's sisters Sharifah Aryana and Sharifah Aleya take on the roles of Orked and Mak Inom respectively, which perhaps accounted for their excellent chemistry together on screen, nevermind that their not playing sibling roles. The only constant it seems is Kak Yam, played by Adibah Noor, and even Pak Atan has hair on his head! Through Mukshin the movie, we come full circle with the characters, and the world that Yasmin has introduced us to. We come to learn of and understand the family a little bit more, set in the days when they're still living in their kampung (revisited back in Rabun), where Orked attends a Chinese school, and packs some serious combination of punches (and you wonder about that burst of energy in Gubra, well, she had it in her since young!). The perennial tomboy and doted child of the family, she prefers playing with the boys in games, rather than mindless ""masak-masak"" with the girls, and favourite outings include going with the family to football matches.

The arrival of a boy called Mukhsin (Mohd Syafie Naswip) to the village provides a cool peer for Orked to hang out and do stuff with - cycling through the villages, climbing trees, flying kites. And as what is desired to be explored, the crossing of that line between friendship and romance, both beautiful emotions.

Mukhsin does have its cheeky moments which liven up the story, and bring about laughter, because some of the incidents, we would have experienced it ourselves, and sometimes serve as a throwback to our own recollection of childhood. In short, those scenes screamed ""fun""! We observe the life in a typical kampung, where some neighbours are very nice, while others, the nosy parkers and rumour mongers, spreading ill gossip stemming from envy. There are 2 additional family dynamics seen, one from an immediate neighbour, and the other from Mukhsin's own, both of which serve as adequate subplots, and contrast to Orked's own.

As always, Yasmin's movies are filled with excellent music, and for Mukhsin, it has something special, the song ""Hujan"" as penned by her father, as well as ""Ne Me Quitte Pas"", aptly used in the movie Given that the Yasmin's movies to date have been centred around the same characters, the beauty of it is that you can watch them as stand alone, or when watched and pieced together, makes a compelling family drama dealing with separate themes and universal issues like interracial romance, love, and forgiveness. Fans will definitely see the many links in Mukhsin back to the earlier movies, while new audiences will surely be curious to find out certain whys and significance of recurring characters or events, like that pudgy boy who steals glances at Orked.

And speaking of whys, parts of Mukhsin too is curiously open, which probably is distinctive of Yasmin's style, or deliberately left as such. I thought that as a story about childhood, recollected from memory, then there are details which will be left out for sure. And subtly, I felt that Mukhsin exhibited this perfectly, with not so detailed details, and the focus on what can be remembered in significant episodes between the two.

Another highly recommended movie, and a rare one that I feel is suitable for all ages - bring along your kid brother or sister!",Positive "Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as ""Him"" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-""Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience.",Negative "The British horror film was in terminal decline by the start of the Seventies, but out of the blackness came three films that were among the best our island produced. The Wickerman, Blood on Satan's Claw and The House That Dripped Blood made the future seem rosy, even though a lot of people knew by this point there wasn't going to be one. THTDB has the sort of cast that could easily form a wishlist, if it hadn't actually been assembled, in the bleak hinterland of 2008 you may well find yourself expecting to wake up. Waxworks is the most overlooked of the four stories and is, naturally, my favourite, Cushing's life and art are interlinked so firmly that you can't tell where performance ends and pain begins. One can only guess how this role affected such a gentle, sensitive man. Death and the maiden. RIP Peter.",Positive "I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, ""We want you to _think_ !!"", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.

If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: ""Einstein's Universe"", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), ""The Cosmic Code"", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being ""open-minded"".

To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.

You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? ""Thirteenth Floor"", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.",Negative "Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).

Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.

'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?

No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.",Negative "Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.",Positive "When I first saw the Romeo Division last spring my first reaction was BRILLIANT! However, on future viewings I was provided with much more than masterful film-making. This picture has a singular voice that will echo throughout the annuls of film history.

The opening montage provides a splendid palette which helmer JP Sarro uses to establish his art on this canvas of entertainment.

Sarro truly uses the camera as his paintbrush while he brings us along on a ride that envelops the audience in a tremendous action movie that goes beyond the traditional format we have become accustomed to and dives deeply into dark themes of betrayal, revenge and the importance of companionship. This movie is any director's dream at its very core.

However, Sarro was not alone in this epic undertaking. The writing, provided by scribe Tim Sheridan, was just as breathtaking.

The dialogue was so precise and direct that it gave the actors such presence and charisma on the screen. Specifically speaking, the final scene (WARNING: SPOILERS!!! SPOILERS!!!) where Vanessa reveals herself to be one of the coalition and a villain all the time, is written in such a dark tone that it is one of the most chilling endings I have ever seen. Sheridan is the next Robert Towne.

In a final note it is obvious that this production was no small feat.

Therefore much praise must be given to producer Scott Shipley who seems to have the creativity and genius to walk next to Jerry Bruckheimer. Never before have I witnessed a production so grand with so much attention directed at every little detail. A producers job is one of the hardest in any movie and Shipley makes it look easy.

All in all this film combines creative writing, stunning production and masterful direction. This is the art of film at its best. When the ending of the film arrives the only thing that is desired is more.

The Romeo Division is groundbreaking, a masterpiece and, most importantly, The Romeo Division is indeed art.",Positive "I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure",Negative "This has to be one of the best, if not the best film i have seen for a very, very long time. Had enough action to satisfy an fan, and yet the plot was very good. I really enjoyed the film,and had me hooked from start to finish.

Added blood and gore in there, but brought the realistic nature of what happens to the front of the film, and even had a tear jerker ending for many people i should think.

It is a must watch for anyone. Seen many reviews, slating the film, but to be fair, most the films that get bad reviews, turn out to be some of the best. this proves it once again.

Rent this film, buy this film, just go out and watch this film. You will not be disappointed.",Positive "This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.",Positive "I originally watched 8 simple rules on the Disney channel UK for the first series and got completely hooked. When they didn't show it any more \ was annoyed, but then abc 1 satred showing the 2nd series. i didn't think another series would start after I read John ritter had died, however the 2nd series wasn't amazing the latest series is back to it's old excellent standard. i hope they go on to produce more shows soon even though i could watch each show a thousand times. Kaley couco is my favourite character as airhead Bridget and also performs amazing in Charmed. Rory is also good, he shares my name and Grampa as well.I'll keep on watching it until it ends until then I hope it carries on as funny as ever",Positive "I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.",Positive "I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.

But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film.",Negative "I ran across this movie at the local video store during their yearly sidewalk sale. While scanning thousands of videos, hoping to find a few cartoon movies for sale, I came across this movie. I read the back of the movie and knew it was God's hand at work for me to purchase this movie. You see, I have a sibling group of three foster (and soon to be adopted) children living with my family. Immediately my foster children made a connection with the three children starring in the movie. The movie helped them better understand their own circumstances. For the first time, also, the oldest of the sibling group (7 year old/female) decided to open up to me a little bit about her past and the trauma she had experienced. She has been fighting the entire trust issue. This is also the first time I had seen her cry. After watching the film, I asked her what it meant for a child to be adopted. She replied, ""It means to be happy."" A must see for families who are fostering children and are considering adoption. It certainly opened the lines of communication with us.",Positive "The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.

Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.

In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug ""cocktails"" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see.

Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the ""gay cancer"", and governments preferred to ""let them die"" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain.",Positive Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick.,Positive "Worst film ever, this is a statement that people here on IMDb often throw around. Whether it's an Uwe Boll movie, bad classics like Manos The Hands Of Fate or the latest no brains summer action fest from Michael Bay, people are often quick to jump to the sudden conclusion that on the board they're posting that there is nothing worse in the movie world.

I envy these people, because they're blissfully ignorant and unaware of how deep the rabbit hole of crap movie making really goes. There are films out there so bad, so hideous, so unintentionally hilarious and so ridiculous that cults form around them to celebrate their awfulness and their discussion boards are the kindest places on the internet due to everyone agreeing unanimously that said film is really that bad.

Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you Ben and Arthur, an 85 minute gay epic that is so utterly bad that it's a lot like a violent car crash, you know it's awful but you can't stop looking at it. The brainchild of self proclaimed ""hollywood actor, director"" and may i add beached whale Sam Mraovich, this film is legendarily terrible. Let me give you a hint of how ego driven this project was. Mr Mraovich not only directed this film, he wrote it, produced it, executive produced it, scored it, edited it and then finally starred in it. This is a man so blinded by his own ego and so believing of his non existent genius that like someone with an ugly child he fails to recognise just how catastrophic his bastard creation really is.

Everything in this film fails on an epic level, the acting is the worst you will ever witness, the plot is the most ridiculous, the editing and cinematography is the most amateur and even the music is like nails on a chalkboard. I'm aware i've gone on a bit of a tangent here, but please believe me that this film is really as bad as i describe it, i would say this film is horse crap squished into a film reel, but the truth is it wasn't even shot on film, it was shot on a digital camcorder not much better than the one sitting in your closet right now gathering dust. Don't get me wrong, i forgive low budgets for films provided the concept is interesting, for example as much as i disliked it The Blair Witch Project proved that low budgets can still lead to an atmospheric interesting film. Ben and Arthur does not have a good concept to fall back on, even if this film was shot on a budget of 20 million with Hollywoods finest actors it would still suck, the plot is that atrocious, and the characters are even worse. One of the main characters Arthur who is portrayed by non other than Sam Mraovich is one of the most whiny loathsome little turds ever put in a film. You'll dislike him within 5 minutes of the start of the film and by the end of the film that hate will have turned into outright loathing. Apparently Mr Mraovich forgot that we're supposed to root for the hero.

I don't want to spoil all the gut busting hilarity you'll experience watching this film (which i urge you not to pay for) so i will give you two tame mild examples of how stupid this film is, tame and mild as in amongst the least offending mistakes in the movie. In one cut we hear one of the main characters say how ""they know a good lawyer and will give HIM a call"" the shot fades out then fades back in and this HIM they spoke of earlier is actually a woman, quite a spectacular mistake to make in post production i think. The second is simple, seconds after seeing this transsexual lawyer the characters are told to fly to Vermont, we then cut to a shot of a plane landing amongst palm trees in a sunny area. I've never been to Vermont personally but i'm certain you won't find any palm trees there.

Imagine this kind of stupid amateur inconsistency stretched to nearly an hour and a half combined with ridiculous dialogue and plot and then multiply it by 10 and it still won't fully prepare you for Ben and Arthur. Imagine the absolute worst film you've seen in your life and imagine it being even worse and you still won't be on the same level as Ben and Arthur, this film is really that bad.

However we should be glad in a way, films like this are a true rarity. They give us hope that one day we can become film makers ourselves or that we can be screenwriters. Simply because we'll have a new found sense of confidence due to the fact that we'll know that nothing we produce no matter how amateur could be as much of a suck fest as this.

The real worst movie of all time has finally been discovered, and it is called Ben and Arthur.",Negative "This movie is one of the most unintentionally bad action films ever put to film. Dolph Friggin' Lundren with a Japanese accent is funny enough, but add really corny buddy-buddy action to the mix, an eccentric and over-the-top villain, a clichéd love interest subplot and one of the worst endings of all time, and you've got yourself quite the little suicide-inducing cure for people who enjoy their life and, up till watching ""Showdown,"" had never contemplated killing themselves with a blowtorch.

I don't know if it's just me but the whole homosexual subtext is none too subtle. There are constant references to male genitalia, and not by females, either. Brandon Lee and Dolphin talk about each other's manly parts, and in fact before going on a suicide spree, Brandon says to Dolphy, ""In case we don't make it, I want to tell you, you have the biggest d--- I've ever seen.""

Now, is this what a normal man would say to another man? In an ACTION film no less? And would you want those to be your _dying words_??

Later, there's this gem:

Dolph (regarding the villain): ""I would like to cut off certain parts of his anatomy."" Brandon: ""Man, you've got a fixation.""

As the guy at RuthlessReviews.com pointed out, ""Unfortunately, Dolph doesn't respond with, 'I've got a fixation? I've got a fixation?! You're the one who decided that his last words should be about my privates! I was just gonna chop of his ears and his nose, man.""

This is relentlessly silly stuff and great fun if you're someone who enjoys receiving root canals from unlicensed dentists, without novocain. It's about on par. Great fun for the whole family!",Negative "The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.

Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny ""real-life"" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.

In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.

Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.

The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.",Negative "Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.

Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.",Negative "Don't get the impression from other reviewers that this film stinks cos it's ambivalent about the Japanese whaling industry (which, morally, is no worse than the US meat trade or the Scottish haggis cull), it stinks cos it's pretentious tosh, the sort of up-its-own-behind guff that gets modern art a bad name. That said, there are some stunning images, but there are stunning images in the average bus ride if you use your imagination, so that's no reason to go and see this nonsense. What happens in the film happens very slowly and often accompanied by a soundtrack that sounds like a cat being gutted, and then, just when you thinks it's finished, it starts again. I saw it it in a porn cinema in Rome which had been hired for the weekend to show Barney's film works, which is an admirable and clever way to reclaim what had once been a local fleapit from the dirty-old-men-in-macs brigade, but if the trendy young things and the slightly older beard-stroking Bjork fans were to be honest, everyone might have had a lot more fun if they'd just shown one of the pornoes!",Negative "WOW is all i can say if your reading this is either watched it or are thinking about it. trust me watch it!

i laughed so hard at so many parts of this movie the worst acting ever made is very funny! I cant believe they superimposed the school sign! I must have played that scene over and over again just to laugh more and more every time. If a movie like this can be made it gives us all hope in making our own movies. even the costume was bad. it looked like my 7 year old cousin could have done a better job on making it. heck i bet he could have written and acted better as well. all i know is that i have to watch the second part just so i can see if it was as bad as the first. its a cool idea about a killer scarecrow but a much better job could have been done. hopefully another killer scarecrow movie comes out, just not like this one.",Negative "I remember being terrified of movie blood when I was younger, and gradually getting less so, until getting jaded enough, as I'm sure many other viewers have become, so that the barrage of gory films produced in last few years have entertained me but not scared me or made me squirm. ""The Dentist"" turned that around.

The setup seems simple: a mentally unstable dentist wreaks havoc on the insides of mouths, and perhaps bodies as well. A clever twist, though, is that the dentist is the film's protagonist, so instead of being some one-dimensional bad guy with no clear motivation, his development is the most extensive of any character and he is very human and believable. The viewer thus feels sympathy for him as well as his victims, and instead of hoping for justice to come to him, I found myself hoping he would somehow find a way to cover up his tracks and return to a normal life.

What really ""makes"" a horror movie is the violence. And ""The Dentist"" does it better than any other film I can think of. First off, the film has tons of tension, which is something that modern gore films tend to lack. In one scene (), the dentist is emotionally distraught and has to see a young child patient for the first time. As he reaches into the child's mouth, you hope that, for the dentist's and the child's sake, the encounter ends without injury. I won't spoil what happens. Second, when the gore does come, it hits all the worst, squirmy nerves. Once again, I won't give anything away.

Of course, being a movie that you've never heard of, it does have flaws. Most importantly, it's exclusively for horror fans. Also, as another reviewer mentioned, by taking place over a span of just a few days, we don't really get any background on the characters. And the tension drops a little bit during the very end. But really, the fact that we would even want to know background about the characters is evidence to how good it is, and the bulk of the film is solid enough that any small lapses in tension can be forgiven.

It's strange, after years of being accustomed to movie gore, to suddenly want to cover my eyes at the sight of blood. ""The Dentist"" made me scared and thoroughly uncomfortable, and for this it earns my full approval.",Positive "Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film ""Hitokiri"" (manslayer; aka ""Tenchu"" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in ""western"" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name ""Hitokiri,"" a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the ""Loyalist"" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. ""Brilliant History Lesson"" indeed!

No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.

The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of ""leveling"" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.

But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's ""Black Ships,"" the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from ""selling out the country."" (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.

Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)

Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with ""Goyokin,"" which Gosha made in the same year. But, where ""Goyokin"" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, ""Hitokiri"" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.

In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a ""Bonanza"" episode.

Barry Freed",Negative "Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.

But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.

So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.

And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...

'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much.",Negative "This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to ""Billy Lo"" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.",Negative "In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.

Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.

Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.

Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.

The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.

Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.

For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : ""I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people.""

Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video

Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.

Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.

Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.

Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.

Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.

Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video",Positive "I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking ""so what"" and ""why did I waste my time watching this.""",Negative "When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()

The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.

The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with ""I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill""...

So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :()",Positive "I viewed this movie in DVD format. My copy may have been affected but I was disappointed with the lack of menu screen for the DVD. I will say that my initial reason for viewing this movie was Claire Forlani. While fun to watch, I feel she didn't live up to my expectations that I have so far found from her other films. I actually was equally pleased to see Arkin turn in a humorous performance. The other two actors I wasn't very familiar with so I can't compare their performance, however they were fairly enjoyable also. The acting is the only endearing quality of this movie in my opinion. The story line, while some could say slightly compelling, lacked direction. I feel that the main problem stems from the script and not the direction of this film. If you enjoy any of these actors to a fair extent then I recommend this film, but otherwise leave it alone.",Negative "I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical ""facts"" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the ""I am in control..."", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal ""facts"" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is ""difficult"". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's ""Reel to Real"" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.",Negative "This movie makes me think the others I've seen with Combs were an accident. The plot had more holes than I think I've ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a ""b"" movie. The acting was so laughable that not even the memories of Combs' past campy triumphs were enough to save it. Considering the script I have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. I am thoroughly upset that I paid Blockbuster prices for this trash. The fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. Avoid this movie no matter what.",Negative "At first I didn't didn't like it that much, although I did. They didn't include the third Trueba generation, the love between Blanca and Pedro wans't well explained and some actors were too different from what I had imagined.

Later I realized that, had the movie been more loyal to the book, it would have been like five hours long, and would be kind of tedious. Now I like it very much, because my favourite characters are there as I portraited them. Clara really looks like an Angel in live, and her introduction to the story at the beggining of the film was fantastic, loyal and short. Glenn Close is Ferula. I pictured her just like that, only not in mourning throughout the whole thing. Esteban is find enough. I never really liked his character, and, although I was interested in him, I hated him a lot, more specially when he hit Clara. As in the book, the very last part is the most exciting one, and it has real history too there.

The movie is really good, specially considering that it was a gringo film based upon a latin american book. Its amazing how many famous stars are there, don't you think so?",Positive "Well now, this was certainly a surprise episode. In this anthology science fiction series, with all of this Alien Beings, Extraordinary Occurrences and many Brushes with the Hereafter, this episode would certainly rate as unusual. Its seemingly insignificant settings apparently not imparting any morale at story's end. Or does it? Kicking off with the Silent Movie Form, no recorded dialog, but having Musical accompaniment. In this case it's on the sound track, not utilizing the Playing of Organ or Piano by an on sight Musician. This part of the episode, along with the ending section, also made liberal use o Title Cards, just like ""the Old Time Movies."" While these Titles are a bit exaggerated and overdone, they are made so intentionally and with an affection for rather than any contempt for The Silent Film.

Veteran Comedy Film Director, Norman Z. McLeod, was the man in the Chair for this half-hour installment. He had been the Director of many of the greatest comedies of all time, featuring people like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Harold Lloyd and Danny Kaye. He was no stranger to to TV, as he had done a lot of work on Television Series.

It doesn't appear that he and Mr. Keaton had ever worked together before(as I cannot find any evidence of this)' but judging by the outcome of the film, they succeeded in doing so with flying colors! Anyone who directed Keaton was aware that Buster was also a fine comedy Director as well as a Comedy Player. He was just as comfortable behind the camera as he was in front of it. Their short partnership must have been a harmonious one, with 'give and take' about how to do things. It is apparent that many of the gags were Keaton's, resurrected from his own Silent Picture Days. For example, the gag of putting the pair of pants on with Rollo's(Stanley Adams assistance was done by Keaton and Roscoe ""Fatty"" Arbuckle in one of the Arbuckle 2 Reelers, THE GARAGE (1919). That was a clear example of his craft in a nutshell.

Buster knew that we film our world with a camera, rendering it a two dimensional image. This one fact is at the bottom of so many of gags. It is a Cardinal Rule for his film making.

The cast was small and once again just chock full-of veteran talent. Stanley Adams was Rollo and served as Mr. Keaton's straight man. Jesse White, the old 'Maytag Repair Man', ran the fix it shop that fixed the 'Time HJelmet'. Gil Lamb, serene veteran of RKO Short Comedy series, was the 1890's Cop. James Flavin, George E.Stone, Harry Fleer, Warren Parker, and Milton Parsons all rounded out this largely silent cast.

Without spilling the beans, let's just say that yes, there is probably a lesson to be learned here. If not the one already mentioned, ""The Grass Always Looks Greener on the Other Side of the Fence!"", then how about, ""Be Careful in What You Ask For, Because You Just May Get It!""",Positive "urgh! 3 things a movie needs: a good script, a good plot and good casting. i watched this movie expecting it to be hilariously terrible and was unfortunately disappointed when it was just plain terrible. I lost the will to live halfway through. The only thing which stopped me from stabbing my eyes out with a fork was Rose Byrne (who was the reason for me watching it in the first place). She did a good job as Rastus and her appearance hasn't changed much since she was 13. it was a fantastic first effort in a movie. the dog was also very good. both did a great job with such awful material. Sandra Bernhard i think was the biggest mistake of the movie. she was completely miscast, and i don't think she ever quite got the character.

I give the movie 2 out of 10 - and thats only because of Rose.",Negative "There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.

For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.

Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.

So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.

On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.

On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.",Negative "In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. ""You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined,"" he is told. ""Paris is Burning"" is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.

The miracle of ""Paris is Burning"" is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;

This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise ""Paris is Burning"" isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.

I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. ""Paris is Burning"" is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen.",Positive "To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).",Positive "If the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then ""The Broken"" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and ""meaning"" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think ""The Broken"" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of ""Invasion of the Body Snatchers"" but without the alien interference. ""The Broken"" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. ""The Broken"" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of ""fake"" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way … WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian ""ø""",Negative "An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.

Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film!",Positive "Vivacious & irrepressible, ANNE OF GREEN GABLES brings unlooked-for happiness into the lives of a lonely old sister & brother on Prince Edward Island.

Lucy Maud Montgomery's well-loved novel comes to life in this wonderful little movie. Excellent production values, a literate script and first class performances gives the story exactly the touch of quality it deserves.

Taking her professional name from the character she portrayed, actress Anne Shirley is a joy as the red-headed fourteen-year-old orphan who completely alters the lives of her new guardians. Completely assured in her starring role, Miss Shirley is a delight, entertaining the viewer with Anne's boundless imagination, quick temper and not-so-secret sorrows.

Playing the stern spinster who gives the girl a home, Helen Westley also completely commands her role; the viewer will enjoy seeing this sharp-tongued woman slowly unbend to Anne's affection and child-like innocence. Australian character actor O. P. Heggie gives one of his finest performances as Westley's shy, gentle brother who welcomes Anne into his heart from the moment he arrives to fetch her from the railroad station.

Tom Brown most agreeably plays the schoolboy who quickly grabs Anne's attention. Sara Haden is appropriately prickly as a nosy neighbor. Charley Grapewin makes the most of his few moments as Avonlea's doctor.",Positive "I'm sorry to say that there isn't really any way, in my opinion, that an Enzo would really be able to keep up with a Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. The power to weight advantage possessed by the S7 would just be too great. The S7 has a power:weight ratio of 3.93 lbs/hp while the Enzo has 4.61 lbs/hp. The S7s low end is much better too. Sorry Ferrari fans but the Saleen just gets it done so much better.

As for other parts of this film, I just have to say it's so substandard as to be pathetic. The story is way too weak. The acting in this lemon is worse than daytime soaps.

I can say that as far as it being a treatise on negative psychology its kind of a gem. This film is nothing if not a glaring definition as to what narcissism and sociopathy are all about. Its all about these rich punks getting their rocks off while showing only traces of feigned remorse for all the innocent road users they cause injury or death too.

I can't give the film a ""1 Star"" rating because it didn't compel me to actually walk out of the theater. I also think that having an amazingly beautiful brunette with killer blue eyes as the leading female saves it from being completely abysmal....although there is no way her singing would put her on the cover of 'Variety'.

ps: the guy who plays Jason is SOOOOO the skid row version of James Vanderbeek.",Negative "The Rookie' was a wonderful movie about the second chances life holds for us and also puts an emotional thought over the audience, making them realize that your dreams can come true. If you loved 'Remember the Titans', 'The Rookie' is the movie for you!! It's the feel good movie of the year and it is the perfect movie for all ages. 'The Rookie' hits a major home run!",Positive "Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney.",Positive "There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel ""Jane Eyre"", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.

There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This ""Jane Eyre"" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.

The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.

All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.

Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.

As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.

The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.

With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true ""Jane Eyre"".",Positive "I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

but again, that's the point ;)

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.",Positive "I got this one a few weeks ago and love it! It's modern, light but filled with true complexities of life. It questions and answers, just like other Eytan Fox movies. This is my favorite, along with Jossi & Jagger. This pictures a lot more, universally, than only the bubbles we may live in. You don't need to be Jewish or homosexual to enjoy this - I'm not, but the movie goes directly to my top ten movies. At first it seems like pure entertainment but it does make you think further. Relationships we have to live with are superficial, meaningful, deep, fatal, you name it. You don't know what's coming, and you definitely don't know where this story is heading as you watch it the first time. It is worth seeing several times. Fox movies include great bonus material - here a great music video and ""the making of"" (including explanation of the title, interviewing Lior Ashknenazi who plays himself in the movie and Arabs with doubts about the Israeli life styles).",Positive "This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.

The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it.",Positive "What is really sad, shows like Six Degree's and Brothers & Sisters are the true reality TV, not that garbage that are nothing more than glorified game shows. I think the ground swell of discontent has been there for the past few years with very premature cancellation's of numerous shows with a cult following. But with the more vocal backlash the fans of Jericho (which I also enjoy) and other shows, networks may start to reverse this trend. I am like others, I will not support ANY new shows until they have been given a second season. I'll then possibly make a decision to watch and catch up via DVD's and online viewing. Until then ABC, you have lost me as a viewer to ANY new show.",Positive "I first read ""Lorna Doone"" about 20 years ago and absolutely loved it! It is a classic historical romance set in the 1600s when the west country was several days' journey from London and law and order was much harder to enforce. Sadly, this version of the book takes several liberties with the story and was incredibly disappointing in my opinion. The acting and production values are OK but the way the story was messed about with was dreadful. Why do television adaptations do this? Why would they think that the thousands of fans of a book would want them to change the story??? One of life's great mysteries!!! The BBC made an excellent version which was televised at Christmas in the early 1990s which I am still trying to track down a copy of! Take my advice, read the book and don't bother with this paltry version!",Negative "Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it.",Positive "Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,""Paulie"".

I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into ""Born In East L.A."" When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.

Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves.

While Cheech Marin's character ""is"" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.

Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.

Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion.

8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END)",Positive "Wow, here it finally is; the action ""movie"" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly ""Matrix"" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.",Negative "BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.

The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.

It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.

Vote: 7.5 out of 10.",Positive "I know a few things that are worst. A few. It had a couple of funny scenes. It is a movie not appropriate for kids but, only a child would find this movie hilarious. This is definetly a movie that you would like to use a free rental coupon for. Don't waste your money just to laugh a couple of times.",Negative "This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.

Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.

Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So).

Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.

Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special.

Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.",Negative "The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.

If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.

Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.",Negative "This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow ""In Your House"" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night.",Positive "In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in ""Christine"") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz.",Positive "Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film

The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business

The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar

The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant

The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing

Also the cop track seems half baked

The finale is too filmy too

Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning

Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay",Negative "I purchased the DVD set on a recommendation from Amazon.com based on my other interests. They hit the nail on the head with this one. I remember watching the show when it was on TV but always wondered what happened to it. Ten years later, it's like watching it all again for the first time. Lucas Black as Caleb Temple and Gary Cole as Sheriff Lucas Buck are great together, even though they are somewhat rivals. Almost representing good (Caleb) and evil (Sherriff Lucas Buck). I never really understood exactly what Lucas was supposed to be, but let it suffice to say, he has some special powers that I don't believe were granted by anything Holy. He can make phones ring, writing appear, or even cause a person's emotions to change. None the less, there are a few episodes where he actually becomes the good guy in spite of it all. All in all, this is an excellent series that like so many others I can think of, (I.E. Point Pleasant, Threshold, Nowhere Man, and SeaQuest DSV just to name a few) were cancelled way before their time. The Steven King's The Dead Zone ( Sunday's USA Network) seems to be the only thing in this genre that seems to be making it. There is just nothing fit to watch on TV anymore. This is because anything that deals with Christianity and Satan is considered offensive and must be immediately pulled from TV. So, in the meantime, I'll just keep buying DVD sets and watching shows that should still be on TV but were booted off TV by religious zealots so we could watch ""quality"" shows like Family Guy and American Dad and The Simpsons (what a bunch of crap that is).",Positive "This Hitchcock movie bears little similarity to his later suspense films and seems much more like a very old fashioned morality tale. A young couple receives an inheritance that they believe will make them happy. They spend the money traveling about the world and living a very hedonistic existence. However, after a while the excitement begins to wane and the couple become dissipated and pointless in their existence. However, out of no where, when they are on a luxury cruise, the ship sinks and they lose everything--and end up much happier in the end because they now appreciate life! What an odd, silly and preachy film! Personally, I'd like to inherit all that money and find out if it makes me miserable!

The production values are relatively poor compared to later productions--a rough film with poor sound quality and rather amateurish acting.",Negative "This film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching this movie.",Negative "Did not know what to expect from from Van Damme's partner & friend /trainer/and his fight choreographer for most of his films. It was nice to see him act as ""TONG PO"" in ""Kickboxer and other Van Damme's films. Now he's on his own. He and his wife make a great team. In this one Qissi is the action director and lead bad guy and he's good. Really meanacing. His wife was the writer, producer and directed most of the scenes which didn't require action. She also did good job editing the film. Together they did a great job. The story made sense, the fight scenes were edited well, the leads were real fighters and looked good together - the story came together well, and if you can beleive it...no bad language, no sex, just action. A new one on me. Check it out!!!",Positive "Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.",Negative "I saw this movie yesterday on Turner, and I was unable to stop watching until it was over, even though I sort of could guess what would happen. Farrell was great in her role, and everyone else did a super job. Some of it seemed to stretch the limits, but all in all, I loved it!! If you get the chance to see it, please do! I actually cried at a few scenes, but then I guess if you are a mom you would. Loretta is beautiful, and I was just in astonishment at the very idea of their being unwed moms there, it seemed ahead of its' time. I say, WATCH IT if you can, and don't listen to criticisms. As they say, I laughed, I cried! I thoroughly enjoyed it!",Positive "The Bible teaches us that the love of money is the root of all evil. The love of money leads to greed which can lead to pride and eventually to destruction. Two brothers, Andy and Hank, will discover how far the love of money will cost them and those they love the most.

Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) couldn't be more different. Andy is seemingly enjoying the success of working in New York's real estate market and is married to his beautiful wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) who is the idea of a trophy wife if one ever existed. Hank, however, is divorcée who finds himself at the mercy of his ex-wife, his daughter's expensive school bills, and endless amount of child support payments. A man who means well and has good intentions, Hank none the less cannot escape the water that his slowly raising above his head no matter how hard he swims to stay above it.

However, Andy has his own problems with the only difference between him and his brother being that he hides them better. He has committed fraud against his company and is heavily involved in drug use in order to escape his fears. The pressure of his life, and the lies he needs to keep his appearances up, have now caused him to think about fleeing the country with Gina in order to start over again. Of course, like Hank, he needs money to do this and believes he knows how to get it. How? By robbing the jewelery store that their parents own and run. This act of betrayal is where the Hanson brothers, their families, and several other lives, will be destroyed because of greed, pride, and fear.

The uniqueness of Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is the manner in which the story is told. After the robbery goes wrong, and Nanette Hanson (Rosemary Harris) who is the mother of both Andy and Hank is killed, the story is told from a variety of different points of view from various days before and after the robbery attempt. We learn more about the motivations of not only Andy and Hank but also the reaction to their father Charles (Albert Finney) to the death of his wife. The relationship between Charles and his two sons, especially to Andy, is also explored and another possible motivation of sorts is discovered after it is revealed that there is little love between the two men. Nanette may have been dearly loved by her sons but their father is a different story.

Philip Seymour Hoffman proves once more why he is one of the most impressive actors in Hollywood today by portraying Andy as not only a greedy criminal with lack of morality but also, in contradictory way, as a man we can sympathize with. Ethan Hawke also brings Hank alive not just as a loser but really as a man just desperate to hang on to what little he has left. Andy and Hank are thus brought to life in such a realistic way that it is easy to think of them as not just characters but the very real images of lost and confused men who now find themselves facing the consequence of their actions.

Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is a moral tale about how our actions lead to consequences that we otherwise might not expect to face. More than that, our choices also can affect those around us in ways we never expected. In what should have been best picture of the year, we see how lives are easily broken when the love of money becomes the ultimate pursuit in order to ease our troubled lives. In other words, there are no easy fixes or answers to our problems and trying to find them can only make things worse.

10/10",Positive "In my opinion, this is the best stand-up show I have ever seen. I became an instant Eddie fan after seeing Dress to Kill, but I must say I think this is his best work. I would say, though, if you ever get the chance to definitely go see him live. It is worth it!

Most of the time after seeing a stand-up routine a couple times, the jokes start to get old. But I have to say, I've seen this show SO many times that I literally have the entire thing memorized (which yes, I realize is kinda sad) but every joke still makes me laugh. This is truly a feel good show.

Dress to Kill will never get old for me. I own it and watch it anytime I need a good laugh.",Positive "Let me being by saying the I followed watching this video by watching Saw and after Bleed, Saw looked like the all time greatest horror flick ever even though I thought it was only fairly good. Bleed is pretty bad. The best part is seeing the female cast nude. The gore is very fake looking and over-done. It has its funny parts but its extremely predictable and I didn't want to stay to see the horrible ending. If I could, I would ban these actors and actresses, the only reason being is that Debbie Rochon (Maddy) has been in over a hundred other videos and I've also seen two other members of the cast in equally or worse motion pictures. They should not allowed to continue this madness.",Negative "This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.",Positive "Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.

The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.

But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.

For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.",Positive "sammo has to have a 10 out of 10 for this movie as it has everything. great story, great fights, great characters and great cameos.

this film sees dick wei take on billy chow and chong fat. sammo takes on lau kar leung in a casino, sammo loses the fight but what a fight it is full of high tempo action and elements of comedy thrown in.

some great and touching moments in the film, lam ching ying pops up in a cameo and gets killed off - gutted.

the end sequence will have you reaching for the rewind button, as its one of the best end fights I've seen. sammo takes on loads of guys and ends up squaring up to billy chow.",Positive i honestly think that that was the best version of war of the worlds i've every seen. it was funny but it was also educational i learned whole lot the movie and if i could i would by that movie. my favorite part was when the soldiers killed on robot and another one came right from behind it. in the last movie war of the world i think that it should have been more like the first one and it would have been better. but any way i give this movie 2 thumbs up.

and if they where to make another movie like this i will definitely watch it.

thank you,Positive "I thought it was a New-York located movie: wrong! It's a little British countryside setting.

I thought it was a comedy: wrong! It's a drama.... Well, up to the last third, because after the story becomes totally ""abracadabrantesque"", the symbolic word for a French presidential mandate. It means, close to nonsense even it the motives would like to bring a sincere feeling.

What Do I have left? Maybe, a good duo of actress: Yes, I know, they are 3 friends, but the redhead policewoman is a bit invisible for me. The tall doctoress surprises by her punch, and McDowell delivers a fine acting as usual, all in delicate, soft and almost mute attitude. This gentleness puzzles me, because as other fine artists or directors, the same pattern is repeating over and over. In her case, it's like, whatever the movie, it's always the same character defined by her feelings, her values, who lives infinite different stories. I still don't know how to set the limit (or the fusion) between the artists and the works.

Another positive side of this movie is its feminine touch & the interesting different points of view. The women have each their own way of living, even if they are all single. It brings a lot of tolerance and learning to witness how a same and unique reality can be perceived in as many ways as people.

Finally, the movie is quite viewable, but the great final cuts the desire of a next vision.",Negative "Bingo is the game, bullshit is the name. Rarely has the screen been smeared with such a blown-up hodgepodge of half-baked conspiracy theories, puritan prudery, and new-age gibberish. The bulk of the story is set at Viciente, a Cristian resort in the Peruvian jungle. Think Tolkien's Rivendell meets Star Trek's Planet Baku, inhabited by dimwitted followers of a not-so-mysterious, but surprisingly narrow-minded cult of love and peace. Thanks to gruesome acting and tacky production design (the rainbow-colored visualization of the mysterious all-healing ""energy"" is particularly hideous), ""The Celestine Prophecies"" looks and feels like a discarded 1980s ""Twilight Zone"" episode. Factual errors regarding church history and nomenclature abound. I can't believe Hector Elizondo agreed to be a part of this. Maybe it was made without his consent, Bowfinger style. May the Lord have mercy on the director, the screenwriter, the author of the novel, and the poor souls who see the movie or read the book.",Negative Indian cinema typifies cops of two broad categories: they are either the honest type or the bad guys. The honest guys always shout at the top of their voice and fight the system while the bad cops enjoy for most part but suffer at the end.

This movie at least breaks this usual formula and gives a refreshing view of cops and their lives. The direction takes an inside look at the life of a young ambitious cop who. The music is interesting and the editing is a trend setter as far as Indian cinema goes.

The movie is slow at times and the dilemma which Anbu faces when it comes to Maya is overplayed at times. But I would still give this one 9/10 simply because it has many firsts to its credit.,Positive "I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly ""grip my excitement and imagination."" At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.

Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!

Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie ""Critters"", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.

Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep.",Negative "I just love Malle's documentaries. They are so effortless and simple but still so fascinating. I have no idea why this documentary works. It is about Glencoe, Minnesota. 5000 people live there and nothing happens, really. But still Malle manages to make it fascinating and interesting. His love for humanity, even racist or homophobic people, is so overwhelming that you just can't help but also to fall in love with them too.

Malle filmed most of it in 1979. He came back 6 years later to see what had changed. This would have been a good film without the material 6 years later but this small addition makes it great. It may sound like Malle was just doing what has been done in the Up series but in fact it is not. The Up series are about people. Malle's emphasis is not so much on what happened to each person but what has happened to this community. And the change is great. 1985 is the Reagan era and the farmers are suffering. Once a proud community, now no one sees much future at all and parents hope their children will educate them self and do something else than farming.

This documentary is quite relevant today. Our financial crises today started because of what was happening then. Just take a look to these final words in the film, spoken by an older lawyer from the town (in 1985):

""Well I have high hopes for this country because the things that are going on right now can only be characterized in my mind as an obsession with greed. And a nation doesn't live long with that obsession. And particularly a democracy that... There's good - there's good - a lot of good in this country and a lot of good people and they aren't gonna - they aren't gonna subscribe to this philosophy of greed that's going on now. It's horrible.""

Unfortunately it took more than 20 years and a hell of a headache before that happened.",Positive "John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.",Negative "The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will ""get it,"" it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with ""Jesus is Magic"" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot.",Positive "This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.

Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.

All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10.",Positive "The plot intellect is about as light as feather down. But the advantage here is the boy and girl classic refusal we have become accustomed to in ""The Gay Divorcee"" and ""Top Hat"" is now absent. Instead of the typical accidental acquaintance, the dancing duo are the former lovers Bake Baker and Sherry Martin, who are still in love since their dancing days.

Of course, being a 30s musical, there's the problems of misunderstood romance, classy courtship and the slight irritation of a sabotaged audition with bicarbonate soda has costing Ginger something rather special. And then in the grand tradition of dwindling finances, there's nothing better for Hollywood's best entertainers than put on a show.

Delightful numbers from Irving Berlin are sprinkled throughout the show. Top hats and evening dresses are saved right until the end, which remains a refreshing change. Fred and Ginger are out again to charm the world...and charm the navy. Everyone and everything is once again just so enjoyable.

Pure classic silliness at its best. But with Astaire and Rogers, we just know it's got to work.

Rating: 8.25/10",Positive "Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire – that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains.",Negative "This was one of the most boring ""horror"" movies that I have ever seen. A college kid has an epidemic of nightmares involving roaming spirits at Alcatraz. Trying to deliver a mix of ""Nightmare on Elm Street"" and standard vampire fare in the form of a bad 80s music video, this movie is jammed full of bad acting and an exhaustively slow moving story. Although, being such a bad, and often laughable movie (dig those mullets and the terrible dialog), it would be good material to spoof on for an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't be fooled by the proud mention of the film being the 1987 winner of the Silver Scroll Award by the Academy of Sicence Fiction, Fanatasy, and Horror, or that Devo contributes to the soundtrack, or that Tony Basil has a part in the film. It is a giant disaster, though one with a small cult following (see the other IMDb comments for this film).",Negative "When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.",Negative "The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase ""guaranteed to offend"" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!",Negative "Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.

In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.

Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all ""ambushees"") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan ""No, it's not"" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.

But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).

It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..",Negative "Since I watched it for the first time, ""Piedras"" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director.

Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.

""Piedras"" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it.",Positive "Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should ""go home and write better""), ridiculous lines in order to understand the ""strong"" ""Christmanish"" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a ""Sex and the City"" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called ""Alloimono stous neous"", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)",Negative "I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.

I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie:

The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns – that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.

""Where is the constable? asks Brennan.

""Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats,"" someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time.""

The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called ""giving a risqué performance in the theatre,"" generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.

In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. ""No man has yet taken a gun away from me,"" said the American. ""Well, I'm taking it"", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.

In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime – let alone a murder – in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway – he is called Gannon in the picture – can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).

{in the movie the lone Mountie says} ""Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it.""

""Then why aren't there more of you?""

""Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you.""

""When?""

""There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May.""

""What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?""

""Part of the time.""

""What about the rest of the time?""

""Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal…""

The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion – that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence – is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.

To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief.

…excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975.",Negative "Routine suspense yarn about a sociopath (Dillon) who gives his sperm to a clinic of human reproduction and starts to harrass the lives of the woman (Antony) and his husband (Mancuso). Extremely predictable, far-fetched and with undecided tone all the way. Don't lose your time with this one...make a baby instead!",Negative "Psychotic transsexual Bobbi murders the patient (Angie Dickinson) of a prominent doctor (Michael Caine) and then pursues the high-priced prostitute (Nancy Allen) who caught a glimpse of Bobbi in the elevator. Liz (Allen) comes under suspicion of the crime and teams up with the patient's son (Keith Gordon) to catch the killer.

It can be summed up in a couple of words: it's very sexy (Dickinson and Allen look great), it's very bloody - with the kind of gore usually reserved for splatter movies, and boy is it well crafted. Writer / director De Palma's script is OK but it really takes a backseat to the man's film-making abilities. It is highly successful on a visceral level and I actually get involved / interested with these characters. I can notice the standard De Palma homages to / ripoffs of Hitchcock - at least from one of the Master's pictures.

And to top it all off, it has a professional and believable cast.

This was De Palma's third movie with ex-wife Nancy Allen (after ""Carrie"" and ""Home Movies"".)

By the way, dancer-turned-actress Rachel Ticotin was one of the production assistants. There's a bit of trivia for you.

I wouldn't think a thriller could be classy and bloody at the same time but this picture pulls it off.

One of the best things about it is a typically striking Pino Donaggio music score.

8/10",Positive "I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T ""go there"" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of ""why???"" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary.",Positive "Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of ""women who deserve it"". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his ""penis of steel"". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.

Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.",Negative "I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain ""critics"", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.

As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in ""another"" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10",Negative "Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a ""Wonder Woman"" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's ""live action"" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.",Negative "Utterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of ""civility"" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called ""The century at war"" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this.",Positive "Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.

I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.

SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10",Negative "Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after ""Doctor X"" & ""The Mystery of the Wax Museum"")who is Niemann's assistant.

Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.

Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.",Positive Undying is a very good game which brings some new elements on the tired genre of first person shoot em ups. It tells the story of Patrick Galloway an expert of the occult and a formidable fighter who is summoned by a friend to his estate in Ireland to investigate some weird phainomena. The game is set in Ireland after World War one so don't expect to find weapons like chainguns or rocket launchers.All the weapons in the game can be considered antiques but the real fun in the game are its spells and the system they operate on.Our hero is ambidexterous so he can use both his hands at the same time: he casts spells with his right arm and uses his guns with the left.So you can shoot and cast spells at the same time which as you understand very fun and also unique to this game! The graphics are great and they can run very well on a medium power P.C..Level design is also cool and atmospheric. Mostly the game revolves around the Covenant estate and the mansion but there are many other locations waiting to be discovered as you progress. Thanks to the talent of Clyve Barker the game has an excelent storyline and plot (something very rare for a First person shooter) and i said before a great and very spooky atmosphere the voice acting is also good but not excellent. But the game has two main flaws. First of all it is quite linear so when your mission says for example go to that room all the doors in the house will be locked apart from those that lead to the room of your mission this may save time but it restricts your liberty of exploration.Secondly the fact all the weapons are antiques may not appeal to most fps players who are used to high tech weaponry. As far as difficulty is concerned the game is very well balanced. Most of it is of medium difficulty but sometimes it gets more difficult but not frustratingly difficult. Overall undying is a great game. Definitely one of the best fps out there.,Positive "Especially for a time when not much science fiction was being filmed (1973), this is a terrific vision of a future where everything has gone wrong. Too many people, and nothing works. The only people who can live in comfort are the rich. It's set in New York in 2022 (I think), and it reminds you of your worst vision of Calcutta.

I got to appreciate Charlton Heston's acting after seeing him in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. He was (maybe is) capable of portraying a range of heroic or semi-heroic people. Here, he is torn between being a cop who is just a little bit corrupt (taking rare food treats from the rich), and being totally corrupt (actively condoning evil).

The movie all seems to take place at night, and sweat is dripping off everyone, except in one of the rare air-conditioned apartments. Even though I hadn't seen it before, I knew the famous ending (which will not here be revealed), but the ending is certainly foreshadowed.

Great scenes with Edward G. Robinson: going to the council (made up of elderly Jews with heavy accents, so it seems), where the truth is revealed. And then going off to the Thanatopsis to check out.

Gritty, pre-Star Wars dystopian science fiction.",Positive "The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms.

Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend.

The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize.

Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?

It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself.

Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.",Negative "I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).

When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...",Negative "As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.",Positive I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.,Negative "Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one.",Positive "This movie was disaster at Box Office, and the reason behind that is innocence of the movie, sweetness of the story. Music was good, story is very simple and old, but presentation of such story is very good, Director tried his best. Abhay is excellent and impressive and he shines once again in his role, he did his best in comedy or in emotional scene. Soha looks so sweet in the movie. Rest star cast was simply okay. Music and all songs are good, Himesh is impressive as an Singer here. Don't miss this movie, its a wonderful movie and a feel good one for us. Abhay best work till date. I will give 9/10 to Ahista Ahista.",Positive "The premise to this movie was one which focused on the polarization of of ideologies in the United States.. This was a highly combustible scenario in America whereby two entirely different cultures collided. What justified such heinously depraved actions anyway?.. As this film presents the scene,(while Hickock and Smith drank) these two men were not intoxicated, nor were they under any kind of influence of drugs!! It was a clear cut case of cold and calculated deliberation.. Basically, these violent acts were the end result of emotional and social neglect... Anytime past 1975, we as a nation have nurtured an empathy for deviates who have been victimized by their environment... However, this incident takes place in 1959!! This dreadful revelation sideswiped us, and mired the nation into a tailspin of conflicting ethics!! With the recent release of the movie ""Capote"" based on Truman Capote, who was the creator of the documentary ""In Cold Blood"", the American people have cultivated a new found fascination with this film!! Robert Blake played the role of Perry Smith, one of the villains in this movie... This is seemingly appropriate given the notoriety he has been involved with concerning his personal life!! ""In Cold Blood"" centers on the element of the unexplained... There was no vengeance involved, there was no material gain to be acquired, there was no potential for social advancement here either, this is merely an instance of a latent and insidiously belligerent anger which ends certainly did not justify the means!! The situational diatribes which Hickock and Smith lamented about were always ambiguous!! Under the circumstances, why then should they take their frustrations out on an anonymously unsuspecting and innocent Kansas family?.. Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) plays the prosecuting attorney who is sickened by this act of macabre capriciousness!! His argument is thoroughly convincing... His contention being: ""These two men who demonstrated no mercy are now asking for yours"" This is a line of logic which would induce me to render a verdict of a conviction if I were to be one of the members of the jury!! Absolute disdain for your precarious plight in life does not serve as vindication for orchestrating a capital crime!! It was Capote's instincts that dictated that such a deranged act of violence should have been brought to the American public's attention!! As it turn out, it was a harbinger of things to come.. ""In Cold Blood"" did just that!! This incident was the calm before the storm relating to a pertinent aspect of emergence to the radical 1960's!! Such a lethal charade also served as an insight to the isolated interests which would besiege many typical Americans for the future!!!

Truman Capote does a tremendous job on authenticating this savage occurrence with his book, (which was a best seller) and, with this documentary as well... The acting in this film by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as well as people like John Forsythe, was incredible!! The director, Richard Brooks, (""Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"", ""Blackboard Jungle"" ""Elmer Gantry"" and ""Key Largo"" to name but a few!!) was outstanding in his collaborative efforts in this movie!! I think that ""In Cold Blood"" is one of the best films in the history of movies!! The film depicts two reprehensible spawns of depravity who delved into demented theatrics, and wound up captivating a trite gratification for being acknowledged at a pejorative nationwide level!!.... This movie pinpoints a psychological discontentment which spurs on an emerging bevy of counter culture purveyors of violence!! Our nation's ideologies are incredibly different now, than they were in 1959!! This movie introduces the American people to the emotional and vacillating culprits who initiated such a precarious metamorphosis in our overall value system!! I recommend to everyone that they see this movie...""In Cold Blood"" was the focal point to the film ""Capote""! Think about it, making a movie about a movie constitutes a rare and coveted accolade in Hollywood!! In the case of ""In Cold Blood"" it is an extreme example of a movie which is vicariously clairvoyant, intellectually elevating, and, of course, it goes without saying, ""In Cold Blood"" was utterly spellbinding, as well as a totally remarkable movie!!",Positive "An MGM MINIATURE Short Subject.

The editor of the Cole County Clarion must decide what is the real IMPORTANT NEWS for his readers: an impending frost which may spell disaster to their crops, or the sensational shooting-down of a notorious gangster on their small town main street.

This is an enjoyable little one-reeler, featuring a good performance by comic Charles `Chic' Sale. Today's viewers will perhaps be more interested in the appearance of uncredited James Stewart, as Sale's nephew/assistant. Slow talking & somewhat goofy, Stewart shows many of the attributes which would make him a huge star in a very short time.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something like writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.",Positive "... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.

My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).

The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.

",Negative "Well-made but basically dreary low-life melodrama which, according to the accompanying interview with lead Isabelle Huppert, writer/director Pialat infused with a good deal of autobiographical detail; given the mainly unsympathetic characters involved, it doesn't do him any compliments - and he does seem to have been a troubled man, as Huppert also says that Pialat often disappeared for days on end during the shoot!

The acting is uniformly excellent, however; despite their relatively young age, Huppert and co-star Gerard Depardieu (as the title character!) were already at the forefront of modern French stars - a status which, with varying degrees of success, they both still hold to this day.

I have 3 more of Pialat's films in my ""VHS To Watch"" pile, albeit all in French without English Subtitles; due to this fact but also LOULOU'S oppressive realism - in spite of its undeniable artistic merit - I can't say that I'm in any particular hurry to check them out now...",Positive "Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.",Negative "My wife and I are semi amused by Howie Mandel's show.. I also like Shatner - even when he's at his most pathetic..

But this is absolutely the worst show on television.

Please cancel this show. It sucks a**.

The only positive thing I can say is that the girls are hotter on this show and seem to wear less clothing than Deal or no Deal...

The questions are a mixture of way too easy and incredibly obscure. And watching Shatner or the contestant say ""Show me the money"" makes me want to vomit..

This one will not last.",Negative "Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.",Negative "I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say ""Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that"" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(",Negative "All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.",Negative """What is love? What is this longing in our hearts for togetherness? Is it not the sweetest flower? Does not this flower of love have the fragrant aroma of fine, fine diamonds? Does not the wind love the dirt? Is not love not unlike the unlikely not it is unlikened to? Are you with someone tonight? Do not question your love. Take your lover by the hand. Release the power within yourself. Your heard me, release the power. Tame the wild cosmos with a whisper. Conquer heaven with one intimate caress. That's right don't be shy. Whip out everything you got and do it in the butt. By Leon Phelps"" When Tim Meadows created his quintessential SNL playboy, Leon Phelps, I cringed. Hearing his smarmy lisp and salacious comments made my remote tremble with outrage. I employed the click feature more than once, dear readers.

So When the film version of ""The Ladies Man"" came on cable, I mumbled a few comments of my own and clicked yet again. But there comes the day, gray and forlorn, when ""nothing is on"" any of the 100+ channels...sigh. Yes – I was faced with every cable subscribers torment – watch it or turn my TV off! There he was, Leon Phelps, smirking and ...making me laugh! What had happened? Had I succumbed to Hollywood's 'dumb-down' sit-com humor? Was I that desperate to avoid abdicating my sacred throne? The truth of the matter is I like ""The Ladies Man"" more than I should. A story about a vulgar playboy sipping cognac while leering at every female form goes against my feminist sensibilities.

What began as a crude SNL skit blossomed before my eyes into a tale about Leon and his playboy philosophy, going through life ""helping people"" solve their sexual conflicts. ""I am the Mother Teresa of Boning"", he solemnly informs Julie (Karyn Parsons), his friend and long-suffering producer of his radio show, ""The Ladies Man"". And he's not kidding. Leaving a string of broken hearts and angry spirits, Leon manages to bed and breakfast just about all of Chicago. That he does so with such genuine good-will is his calling-card through life.

Our self-proclaimed, ""Expert in the Ways of Love"", manages to get himself into a lot of trouble with husbands and boyfriends. One such maligned spouse, Lance (Will Ferrell), forms a ""Victims of the Smiling Ass, USA"" club, vowing to catch our lovable Don Juan. ""Oh yes, we will have our revenge"", he croons to his cohorts, in a show-stopping dance number.

Plus it's such a total delight to see Billy Dee Williams as Lester, the tavern owner and smooth narrator of Leon's odyssey to find his ""sweet thing"" and a pile of cash. (Where has he been hiding?) But would I choose this movie as my Valentine's Day choice? Leon's search for the easy life changes him in so many profound ways - that I had to give the nod to our ""Ladies Man"". That he can, at the movie's close, find true happiness with one woman, while still offering his outlandish advice, is the stuff of dreams!",Positive "I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.

Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a ""too young"" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor.

The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.

It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a ""Devil in the Flesh""?

The whole movie is a real treat!",Positive "Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.",Positive "Broadway and film actor-turned-director John Cassavetes (from Rosemary's Baby)creates a masterpiece with this 1977 film. It stars Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes himself, Ben Gazzara, Joan Blondell, Paul Stewart, Zohra Lampert, Laura Johnson and there is a cameo by Peter Falk. The premise of the film: An aging stage and film actress (Gena Rowlands)re-evaluates her life after an obscessed fan dies in a car accident trying to get her autograph. The movie has a slow pace and a dark, moody, frightening quality. It has a 60's cinematic look and it even reminded me of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby without the supernatural horror. The fears here are the ones every successful actress has- she is getting old and she will become useless in her career. Furthermore, she feels she has lived a life that lacks any true spirituality, humanity and merit. She has lived only for her career- she has no children, doesn't do charitable deeds, etc. The gradual disintegration of her personality is the meat of this film. She is falling apart. She's in a crisis. Gena Rowlands really gets into the character's tormented psyche and acts the part quite well. She is a terrific actress and this 70's film is a refreshing contrast to the often violent films of the period and or the disaster movies or adventure thrillers. It's a movie with lots of deep-seated emotion but has a cold, cynical feeling, as if Cassavetes is criticizing the mainstream movies and actors of the 70's generation. Either that or this movie is a product of the 70's which was itself cynical in many aspects- Nixon's deception, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Although the production values are not great, and this film is not well-known, it's a very haunting film with haunting moods. Kudos to the underrated and late director Cassavetes who died in the late 80's.",Positive "his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.

George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.

It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.",Negative "One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour",Positive "I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James ""Not Jim"" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.",Positive "I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films – just to name a few.

Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films – ""Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense."" Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his ""masterpiece."" In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of ""art."" People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly – no drama.

The most eventful scene has two people ""banging"" on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress – ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to ""bang."" The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of ""character development."" A truly misguided ""entertainer"" indeed.

Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically – for absolutely no reason whatsoever – for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer.

In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.

Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and – gasp! – Showgirls. How do you like them apples?",Negative "All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary.

Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - ""Written, Directed, and Produced by"" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged.

Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement.",Negative "I settled back to watch ""Read My Lips,"" a plate of Freedom Fries before me. The food was quickly forgotten as I became engrossed by director and co-writer Jacques Audiard's original and superb thriller.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a secretary at a firm that develops major building projects. She actually has some significant responsibilities that don't often fall to secretaries and she's capable and ambitious. And thwarted by a male hierarchy that will exploit but not reward her.

Work piling up faster than she can handle it, Carla is told to hire a secretary. Enter ex-con and general layabout Paul (Vincent Cassel). He lies about his skills and in fact has none that any legitimate enterprise might require. After an initial serious misunderstanding by Paul as to Carla's interest in him, the two become allies. A quirky friendship starts. In a stunt that would have made a real Carla a major contender on ""The Apprentice,"" she trumps her egotistic male adversary at work with Paul's connivance. Exit the rival.

Carla is virtually deaf without her hearing aid. With it she hears almost normally. She turns the hearing aid off to isolate herself from unpleasant sounds and annoying people. She's also very lonely. A heroic makeup effort was made to have her appear plain but she's truly beautiful. She hasn't a boyfriend. She babysits so a friend can have a liaison (it IS a French movie) Worse and humiliatingly, she accedes to a girlfriend's plea that she hang out somewhere while that married friend has it off with her paramour in Carla's bed. Not nice.

As Carla and Paul get to know each other better, the barely repressed larcenous side of the not so former felon emerges. There's a side story, by the way, of Paul's relationship with his parole officer which neatly complements the main plot and has its own big surprise ending.

""Read My Lips?"" Ingenious Paul recognizes that Carla's ability to read lips, even from a considerable distance, is more than the amusing parlor trick it first seems to be.

From there a caper develops. Enough said.

Paul and Carla are a true criminal oddball couple. She wants love but will also accept money. He wants her, sort of, but business must come before possible erotic satiation. Together Cassel and Devos are strong actors carrying an unusual crime tale to its end very convincingly.

Rent it or buy it but if you enjoy a good crime story you'll go for ""Read My Lips."" And you may well want to watch it several times: I do.

9/10",Positive "This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.

First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.

In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't.",Negative "Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory.",Positive "The movie is absolutely silly.

But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.

I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.

Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.

Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema.",Positive "A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see.",Positive "I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.",Negative "The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.

The acting redefines the term ""terrible overacting"" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine ""bad"".

***spoilers***

The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel ""Lurch"" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.

The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).

Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.",Negative "After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.",Negative "The Secret Fury, in many ways a run-of-the-mill romantic suspense drama (directed by Mel Ferrer) boasts top-notch principals in Colbert and Ryan; it stays puzzling if not quite gripping until towards the end, when implausibility conquers suspension of disbelief -- as so often it does in this genre. But for some viewers the film's highlight will be the portrayal of blowsy Leah by Vivian Vance -- the immortal Ethel Mertz on ""I Love Lucy."" Oddly, Vance had very few film roles; her true home was Broadway, where (among other gigs) she understudied for Ethel Merman. Here she contributes a winning turn as a chambermaid suborned to play a minor part in a nefarious scheme; watch her half-heartedly trying to wave away the smoke when she's puffing a furtive cigarette in the hotel's linen-storage room -- a transgression for which she ultimately pays the supreme penalty.",Positive "This movie forever left an impression on me. I watched it as a Freshman in High School and was home alone that night. I think I lost all respect for Robert Reed as an actor having been a huge fan of the ""Brady Bunch"". I also thought the role of Chuck Connor was horrendous and evil. However, this movie made such an impact on me that I am now a volunteer in the women's state prison doing bible studies and church services and trying to change womens lives, one at a time. What fascinates me is that so few people actually watched this movie. None of my friends watched it and my family is clueless to this day when I discuss this movie because they didn't see it.",Negative "A Kafkaesque thriller of alienation and paranoia. Extremely well done and Polanski performs well as the diffident introvert trying hard to adapt to his dingy Paris lodgings and his fellow lodgers. Horrifying early on because of the seeming mean and self obsessed fellow tenants and horrifying later on as he develops his defences which will ultimately be his undoing. Personally I could have done without the cross dressing element but I accept the nod to Psycho and the fact that it had some logic, bearing in mind the storyline. Nevertheless it could have worked without and would have removed the slightly theatrical element, but then maybe that was intended because the courtyard certainly seems to take on the look of a theatre at the end. I can't help feel that there are more than a few of the director's own feelings of not being a 'real' Frenchman and Jewish to boot. Still, there is plenty to enjoy here including a fine performance from a gorgeous looking Isabelle Adjani and good old Shelly Winters is as reliable as ever.",Positive "I just viewed the film two days ago, and I was filled with anticipation, being that Paris is my second favorite city in Europe and I spent a very romantic 18 months there in the '80's. I was somewhat disappointed that most of this group of vignettes, while original and artistically done, did not capture the ""light"" and beauty of the city very well.Nor enough of the romance! We saw none of the tree-lined boulevards... There was too much darkness, not only literally but figuratively. Some of the plots manipulated the viewer it seemed, and let him/her down ""flat ""(the Marais sequence, the coiffure salesman sequence, to give two examples). The uplifting, good ones: The Mime sequence, the cemetery, the Montmartre (though it left too much to the viewer to comprehend), the ""Cowboy"" vignette ,and the Sacre Coeur-- seemed few and far between, and I would have liked to have seen such a wonderful actor as Orlando Bloom be in something that would have showcased his originality more.",Positive "In New York, Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an addicted executive of a real estate office that has embezzled a large amount for his addiction and expensive way of life with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei). When an audit is scheduled in his department, he becomes desperate for money. His baby brother Hank Hanson (Ethan Hawke) is a complete loser that owes three months of child support to his daughter, and is having a love affair with Gina every Thursday afternoon. Andy plots a heist of the jewelry of their parent in a Saturday morning without the use of guns, expecting to find an old employee working and without financial damage to his parents, since the insurance company would reimburse the loss. On Monday morning, we would raise the necessary money he needs to cover his embezzlement. He invites Hank to participate, since he is very well known in the mall where the jewelry is located and could be recognized. However, Hank yellows and invites the thief Bobby Lasorda (Brian F. O'Byrne) to steal the store, but things go wrong when their mother Nanette (Rosemary Harris) comes to work as the substitute for the clerk and Bobby brings a hidden gun. Nanette reacts and kills Bobby but she is also lethally shot. After the death of Nanette, their father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney) decides to investigate the robbery with tragic consequences.

""Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"" is a comedy of errors, disclosing a good story. The originality and the difference are in the screenplay, with a non-linear narrative à la ""Pulp Fiction"". The eighty-three year-old Sidney Lumet has another great work and it is impressive the longevity of this director. Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome in the role of a dysfunctional man with traumatic relationship with his father that feels the world falling apart mostly because of his insecure and clumsy brother. Marisa Tomei is still impressively gorgeous and sexy, showing a magnificent body. The violent conclusion shows that the world is indeed an evil place. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Antes Que o Diabo Saiba Que Você Está Morto"" (""Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"")",Positive "Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake.",Positive "I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets ""great performances"" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.

I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.",Negative "I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.

I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me ""acting lessons"" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).

David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information.

I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had ""acting"" in it.",Negative "A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.

Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. ""Servered Ties"" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled ""Re-animator"" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from ""Evil Dead 2"".

The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.

Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment.",Negative "I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence.

In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.

John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.

We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.

After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.

One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.

I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.",Negative "JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box

To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants

The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous

One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?

The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story

Even there are several cringeworthy scenes

Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced

Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent",Negative "There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the ""intelligensia"", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!",Negative "Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! ""Witchery"" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: ""If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!""",Negative "Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???

Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!",Negative "Every once in a while , someone out of the blue looks at me a little sideways and asks ""What's with SNITCH'D"" ? I know immediately they have a case of barely-hidden amusement + horror. You see, I was the cinematographer on the film.

Let me clarify some points regarding this ""interesting life experience"".

Originally, SNITCH'D was called ONE HARD HIT. I met James Cahill in July of 1999, a day after I wrapped TRIANGLE SQUARE, a great little 35mm feature that like so many indie features of the era never got distribution despite festival accolades...it fell eternal victim to the fine print of SAG's notorious Experimental Feature contract. But I digress...

I though I was on a roll, and when James asked me to shoot his little gangster flick in 16mm with a shooting budget of about $25,000, not wanting to break pace, I took it. After all, CLERKS, EL MARIACHI... I too believed the myth back then.

Let's just chalk it up as ""film school"" for many involved, myself included. SNITCH'D was shot over two weeks in August, 1999, in Aliso Viejo and Santa Ana, CA. Cahill taught Drama at a High School in the latter city ( yes, he is a Drama and English teacher...consider THAT while watching the film, or even observing the use of apostrophe in title ), hence the locations and cast.

Of note in his cast were the only known dramatic appearance of L.A.'s Channel 2 Morning News weather girl Vera Jimenez, and of greater impact, the debut of Eva Longoria, who had just arrived in Hollywood and was as eager as I to get a film under her belt. I must say her professional dedication, focus and ""let's do this"" attitude kept me inspired and was a foreshadow of her stardom-yet-to-come.

SNITCH'D suffered from poor optics, few lights or electricity, several boom operators du jour, and delivery of an uncorrected offline for duplication. None of that overshadows the actual content, which speaks for itself.

Anyway, by 2003, the film was sold to distributors ( at a net loss, I understand ) who inexplicably had no photos of Eva on the box ( by then she was a rising, working name ) but who did manage to obtain a clear photo of what appears to be an authentic Latino gangster to lend credibility to SNITCH'D. Since Cahill's other passion is antiquarian book dealing, it appears to confirm he believes you can, in fact, judge a book by it's cover... as so many have picked up this DVD based on it's sleeve. ----------------- One year later, Eva, now on a soap, and I met James for one day to shoot a simple short film he had concocted, SPLIT SECOND, which I think has never seen any play despite festival intent.

6 years later, I was hired to shoot another Cahill film titled JUAREZ, Mexico. I though he had worked out the process; my participation was contingent on casting, script and crew control, and the resultant film actually looked promising in dailies, for what it was... a cheap detective story surrounding the mass murders of girls in Juarez; despite claims here and elsewhere, the film has NEVER appeared in any festival or venue, although Cahill has repeatedly claimed the film has distribution and was simply awaiting release to coincide with the DVD release of two studio pictures on the same subject, VIRGIN OF JUAREZ and BORDER TOWN.",Negative "A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.

Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.

Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.

I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.",Negative "I first saw this film as a teenager. It was at a time when heavy metal ruled the world. Trick Or Treat has every element for a movie that rocks. With a cast that features Skippy from Family Ties, Gene Simmons of Kiss and Ozzy Osbourne as a Preacher, how can you go wrong? Backwards evil messages played on vinyl! Yes thats right, they use records in this movie. In one scene Eddie (Skippy) is listening to a message from the evil rockstar on his record player when things begin to get scary. Monsters start to come out of his speakers and his stereo becomes possessed. As a teenager I tried playing my records backwards hoping it would happen to mine. Almost 20 years later Trick Or Treat is still one of my all time favorite movies.",Positive "The true story of a bunch of junkies robbing a not so honest businessman of drugs, jewelry, guns, and money. Some would say this is the tragic tale of America in the excessive eighties where the high of the peace and free love sixties had crashed into drugs and AIDS. Honestly, this is just regular people with no aim in life who sit around getting high and decide to rob a ruthless man. What is the second part of their master plan? Once they have his stuff...they'll sit around and get high again. Great plan. Even if you don't know the story, there is no suspense in this movie and no surprises. The fact that Cox tries to make some kind of folk heroes out of these characters, with party scenes and a montage of their loot, is weak and insulting. The story was better off with a more straight forward approach. As it is, this is just a sad story of small time drug dealers getting killed by big time drug dealers. The bigger story, in more ways than one, is John Holmes. He is the center of this story anyway. This movie should have been all about him, his life. He was the one in wonderland, with the wonders about to fade away.

P.S. Although it isn't official, Boogie Nights is a better version of Holmes life. It isn't entirely factual, but it's far more enjoyable.",Positive "I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no ""nice"" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.",Negative "I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many ""christians"" about the ""mark of the beast""and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma.",Negative "Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of ""The Three Amigos"", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which ""Play Dead"" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which ""Play Dead"" is. What ""Play Dead"" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from ""A Simple Plan"", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK",Negative "The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.

Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.",Negative "Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.",Negative "Panned by critics at the time but loved by the fans, this film has now become a classic. Mixing supposedly 'surreal' footage shot at John Lennon's home among other places with live footage of Marc Bolan & T.Rex at their very best, this film is not just a must for everyone who's liked Marc Bolan but gives a fascinating insight into the era.

These were the times when Marc was hobnobbing with the likes of Ringo Starr of the Beatles [who directed it] and you can even find a brief spot from one Reg Dwight [Elton John to you] bashing the ivories in an amazing [and never officially released] version of Tutti Frutti and rocking and ballad versions of Children Of The Revolution.

There's also wonderful scenes featuring Chelita Secunda [said to have 'created glam rock' with her use of glitter etc], Mickey Finn and even the actor from Catweazle!!

The best scene for me is in the garden when Marc leaves the dining table, sits down cross-legged in front of a string section and knocks out acoustic versions of classics such as Get It On and The Slider.

Highly, highly recommended!! FIVE stars [out of five].

Rory",Positive "The movie itself was ok for the kids. But I gotta tell ya that Scratch, the little squirrel, was the funniest character I've ever seen. He makes the movie all by himself. He's the reason I've just love this movie. Congradulations to the crew, it made me laugh out loud and always will!",Positive "how many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long.

it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys.

the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising",Negative "Charles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in ""Confidential Agent,"" a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.

This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.

The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.

Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.

Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws.",Positive "I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing.",Positive "This is the first American film to successfully adopt the naturalistic style used by Europeans, particularly the French and Belgians, for at least a decade, and isn't it about time? Following three high school girls in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn during the last days of their summer break between freshman and sophomore years, it does what all good art should: it discovers the universal in the particular. Even though the girls' preoccupations are outwardly conventional--boys, sex, popularity, money, freedom, and clothes--we glimpse how their whole lives are being shaped, the universal interface between character and destiny.

The naturalism is whole, complete. The film breathes, stays in the moment, inhabits real time. The story tells itself. The medium and its artifacts, for once, are not the message. The film unwaveringly, truthfully conveys the childhood perspective of its characters; it does not impose its own adult meanings or morals. Details emerge of their own, are never pushed, and thus seem all the more real and powerful for their understatement. Even though great pains have been taken to capture the authentic social reality of Crown Heights, part of the largest Black ghetto in New York City and one of the most dangerous violent places in the US, the subject is childhood in the ghetto, not the ghetto itself.

Documentary footage of the practice sessions of a marching band, the Jackie Robinson Steppers, punctuate the film at regular intervals with an explosion of color, movement, and sound. Otherwise, the camera stays very close, very intimate, a patient, sly, and unobtrusive observer. The language is rich, spontaneous, the acting transparent. Some scenes standout, such as the girls lolling about, each revealing her deepest fantasies. Lanisha's confession of her acceptance of a death by random violence is the most shocking, one of the deepest scars of the ghetto. Her sharing with her mother her confusion and fear before the stark challenges of adult life is equally moving, and beautifully, unsentimentally affirmative.

Social realities are respected, not propagandized: All three girls are being raised by single moms, only one, Lanisha, has a father active in her life (and, not coincidentally, of the three she is the most emotionally stable and empathetic to others, and the one with the most self-respect). Two of them suffer from asthma, a disease disproportionately prevalent in the inner city. Gunfire, an accepted daily occurrence, only momentarily interrupts their conversation. Only one of the girls, Joy, feels hope for, feels she has control over the future, while the other two to varying degrees have already accepted despair.

This is by far the best dramatic American film I've seen in years. See it, see it, see it.",Positive "This film offers absolutely no imagination in it's premise nor in it's execution but these are just two things that come to mind after watching this so-called comedy that has no energy to speak of. Story is about nit-picky over analytical insurance risk manager Reuben Feffer (Ben Stiller) who finds his new wife Lisa (Debra Messing) cheating on him with a scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) after only one day on their honeymoon. Upon returning home Reuben and his best friend Sandy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) go to a party and run into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston) whom they went to school with years earlier.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Polly is forgetful and sloppy and lives carefree which is the opposite of who Reuben is as a person but they start to date and Reuben starts to change as a person as he starts to try out new things such as salsa dancing and eating spicy foods. But one day Lisa comes back and wants to remain married to Reuben but he really doesn't want to but Polly decides to leave as she doesn't believe in marriage to begin with.

This film is the second directing effort by John Hamburg who wrote two generally unfunny screenplays in ""Zoolander"" and ""Meet the Parents"" but those two films seem like classics compared to this stale piece of drivel. It's very easy to say something is not funny but I think with this film it's even easier to figure out why. This film is totally and utterly predictable from start to finish with every scene looking as if it's only happening because of the ridiculousness of the script. Hamburg who also wrote the script seems to have written this without any thought of trying something different and at times he seems to be trying to generate the same energy as ""There's Something About Mary"" but instead the events seem incredibly forced. Did anyone really think the blind ferret was funny? If you do, your easy! A few times during the film characters would inexplicably have these emotional speeches that are supposed to summarize everything but all they achieve is overstating the obvious. Stiller works a lot but maybe he should work less and just wait for the better scripts to come his way because this film doesn't work as a comedy or as a romance.",Negative "I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.",Negative "This is a really strange film--and that is NOT a bad thing. It is a combination of a neo-realistic film about the homeless AND a fairy tale. I'm sure that some may find this movie a bit too strange, but I loved it. Once again, this director brings together a wonderful cast of everyday people (not actors) and gets a great ensemble-type performance. Although not nearly as sad as Umberto D, both movies have a very similar point to make--this one just does it in a very absurdist way. Ignore the cheesy special effects--after all, it was made in the early 1950s and special effects aren't terribly important anyway (or at least they shouldn't be in films). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the very strange and silly ride. Unless you are a total curmudgeon, you'll have a ball.

By the way, since I first reviewed this film, I have seen another DeSica directed film that is an absolute must-see and that is THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US. While not a fantasy or light in spirit like MIRACLE IN MILAN, a great film nevertheless.",Positive "I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...

Then I watched it...

I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the ""action"" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.

Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...

At this point I wept...

I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the ""action"" was even weaker, and the ""visuals"" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...

And then on a whole new level is ""McBain""",Negative "This show has come so far. At first EVERYONE in the cast from Eric to Fez, they were all new actors and actresses, fresh faces, and just look what they accomplished. They stuck with the show and it was a success. Its one of the best shows ever made and its probably the funniest sitcom I've ever seen in my life. It will be sad to see it end but if they end this show, I hope to God that the series finale goes out with one of the biggest bangs that any season finale has ever had. I don't care if the whole season sucks because they save all the fuel for the final episode. Go down swinging, get one last punch in. The show deserves it, the fans deserve it, if they go, let everyone know its going to end, like on Friends, and let the finale be huge. I say get Donna and Eric married, I say have Hyde and Kelso fight and become friends again, I say have something interesting happen between Fez and Jackie because Fez has been trying for so long, but of course it wont work out for him. JUST CLOSE OUT THE SERIES BIG TIME GUYS!

That 70s Show will always be the best in my eyes. Eric, Kelso, Donna, Jackie, Fez, Hyde, I wish I had you guys as friends. You are the best!

10/10...",Positive "I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.

However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose.

Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.

Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.

The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.

Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.

Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.

It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.",Negative "Three part ""horror"" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go ""out there"" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.

The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.

The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.

The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.

It ends very stupidly.

All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.",Negative "I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.",Negative "In NYC, seaman Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles) rescues Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) from a mugging & rape as she takes a horse & carriage through Central Park -and lives to regret it. Titian-haired Hayworth's a platinum blonde in this one; as dazzling as fresh-fallen snow -but nowhere near as pure...

To reveal any more of the convoluted plot in this seminal ""noir"" would be criminal. It's as deceptive as the mirrors used to cataclysmic effect in the final scenes -but the film holds far darker secrets: From the NY Times: ""Childhood Shadows: The Hidden Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder"" by Mary Pacios ""Mary Pacios, who was 5 years old when she was befriended by 15 year old Bette Short, retraces Short's steps, interviewing friends and associates. She also offered a detailed, if speculative, analysis of Orson Welles -particularly in regard to his movie ""The Lady From Shanghai"". According to Ms. Pacios, the movie, along with related archival materials, has many of the same ritualistic elements associated with Short's murder. She raises the question: Could Welles have been the killer?"" Interesting theories -and with the spate of books now out on ""The Black Dahlia"", much more may come to light. Fritz Lang's brutal ""film noir"", ""The Big Heat"" (1953), was a roman-a-clef telling of the ""Dahlia"" killing in ""The City Of Nets"" that was L.A. -but it's the Orson opus that the ""Dahlia"" had a ""hands-on"" connection to. In reality, it was Bugsy Siegel (and the Hollywood mob wars of the 1940's) that did the ""Dahlia"" in ...but that doesn't negate much of what Pacios wrote. Almost all of Hollywood intersected with Elizabeth (""The Black Dahlia"") Short and her tale/aura/legacy/curse is encoded in a number of Golden Age films.

The ""Black Dahlia"" was always on the peripheral edges of ""Shanghai""-even before it started filming. Barbara Payton on Franchot Tone: ""It was when he was thinking about making ""The Lady From Shanghai"", before he lost the option to Orson Welles. Franchot said he'd been in a bad state over that deal when he ran into the Dahlia in the Formosa Cafe* across from the Goldwyn studios..."" *The floor above the Formosa Cafe was Bugsy Siegel's office and ""The Dahlia"" one of his on again/off again working ""girls"".

It gets deeper and darker- After the 1951 brawl over Barbara Payton between Tom Neal and Franchot Tone that sent Franchot to the hospital with a concussion and ""never talking the same way again,"" Barbara said, she married Tone ""just to spite Neal."" Tom (""Detour"") Neal also knew ""The Dahlia"" (who didn't?) and became obsessed- From ""L.A. Despair"" by John Gilmore: ""The January 1947 slaying of the young, beautiful would-be actress Elizabeth Short, known as ""The Black Dahlia"", was one of the most grisly murders in the annals of modern crime. A project, called ""Who Killed The Black Dahlia?"" was being kicked off by actor Tom Neal, a hell-raiser from WW II movies. Potential producer Gene Harris: ""Someone will have to come up with a more imaginative business proposition than what has been presented by Tom Neal and his cohorts..."" Not long after: ""It would be very clear one beautiful day to come, when Tom would sneak up on his pretty, new Palm Springs wife as she lay on their sofa and shoot a .45 bullet through her head."" Barbara Payton and Norma Jean Dougherty (later Marilyn Monroe) knew the ""Dahlia"" and their stories are well known. It seems all who crossed the path of the ""Dahlia"" (like the proverbial black cat) entered a ""Twilight Zone"" darkness and/or had an incredible string of bad luck afterward. Tone/Neal/Welles are only a few -and this includes a butchered film called ""The Lady From Shanghai""...

""Lady From Shanghai"" took two years to be released, thanks to extensive re-editing -and all because Columbia president Harry Cohn couldn't understand the story. It's dark ""noir"" to be sure -one of the darkest, in fact. It's also a wicked satire on life in the new Atomic Age.

Nicolas Christopher:

""Shanghai"" pushes forth an insistent subtext of nuclear apocalypse and contains the definitive noir statement concerning the atomic bomb and the American city. The film's principal murder victim (and there are many), a psychotic and double-dealing lawyer, manically foresees Armageddon at every turn, claiming he can ""feel it."" He announces that he plans to escape to a remote Pacific island -a particularly acid joke on Welles' part since this was the very year the U.S. began testing atomic bombs at just such a place, the Bikini Atoll, relocating all the inhabitants and destroying the ecosystem. By the time of Bikini, the erotic identification of Hayworth with the Bomb appears to have been institutionalized, with the blessing of the military brass; the first bomb dropped in the Pacific testing ground in named ""Gilda"" and has Hayworth's image, in provocative dress, painted directly on its casing...""

Its ironic that Orson Welles' broad interpretation of an Irishman is considered a detriment to the film by many. Welles is giving a clue to viewers that ""Michael O'Hara"" is only the storyteller - not part of the story even though it revolves around him. ""O'Hara"" contradicts the shark motif throughout the film. Sharks on a feeding frenzy won't stop until there's nothing left. ""Michael O'Hara"" lives to tell the tale. ""Elsa Bannister"" causes a feeding frenzy during ""O'Hara's"" trial and her netted chapeau suggests she's caged in -so as not to devour the human spectators to a Roman Coleseum. The spectators are on a feeding frenzy of their own, gossiping and carrying on about ""Elsa"" -a human aquarium correlating to the San Francisco marine museum sequence. That's the human condition ...except for ""Michael O'Hara"". And yet he'll be spending his life trying to forget his past (""Elsa"") -or die trying. ""Elsa"" is part of ""Michael"" and the tale eats its own tail in the end and the viewer is cautioned to stay out of trouble.",Positive "this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.

Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)

even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.

this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... ""So say good night to the BAD guy""",Positive "Busy Phillips put in one hell of a performance, both comedic and dramatic. Erika Christensen was good but Busy stole the show. It was a nice touch after The Smokers, a movie starring Busy, which wasnt all that great. If Busy doesnt get a nomination of any kind for this film it would be a disaster. Forget Mona Lisa Smile, see Home Room.",Positive "While ""The Kiss of the Spider Woman"" cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.

Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, ""Moon Over Parador"" does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in ""TKOTSW""), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.

I agree: the first lady is hot.",Positive I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat.,Positive "Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

2.5/10 Bleah",Negative "I watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like ""Stagecoach"" and ""Mr. Deeds Goes to Town"", this looks prehistoric.",Negative "Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.

Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.",Negative "Since Douglas MacArthur affected more human lives—for the better—than any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's ""MacArthur"" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.

Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early ""Star Trek"" episode ""The Corbomite Maneuver"" (1966) to the recent HBO films ""Something the Lord Made"" (2OO4) and ""Warm Springs"" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us ""Patton"" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was ""four years in preparation and production."" Yet for all of this, ""MacArthur"" is perfectly adequate—and not much more than that.

The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was ordered—by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)—to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits:

· MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmen—thus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons;

· his graduation from West Point—first in a class of 95,

· how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines;

· his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz;

· how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General;

· his postwar service as West Point's youngest—and most progressive—commandant;

· his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924;

· his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932;

· his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's;

· his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines;

· and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.

All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boat—thus, we know that ""General Mac"" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to ""Dugout Doug""—and so patently unfounded.

The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping ""Hit 'em where they ain't"" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos— ""I shall return!""—his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that ""old soldiers…simply fade away,"" after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.

Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactions—again, see Warm Springs—this refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.

And finally, there is a sort of ""made on the cheap"" feel to the film, as there is to ""Midway,"" released about the same time. Both films were relegated to ""television"" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on ""Midway,"" and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his ""Patton"" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.

There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatness—and love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.

In the end, ""MacArthur""—like so many film biographies—is a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it.",Positive "this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10",Positive """I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..."" - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!",Positive "I first saw this film when I was flipping through the movie channels on my parents DirecTV. It was on the Sundance channel and was just starting. I love music, especially late 60s and this is what the BJM sounded like (The Dandys are alright). Everything about the Brian Jonestown Massacre intrigued me from the music, to Anton and Joel's personalities, to the illicit drug use. It was funny because as I was watching the first party scene when everyone is doing lines my parents walked by and decided to watch (The look on their faces were priceless). Anyways this is definitely one of my favorite movies because it introduced me to The Brian Jonestown Massacre who is now my favorite band of all time.

just watch it... seriously",Positive "Despite the feelings of most ""Star Wars"" fans, in my opinion ""Return Of The Jedi"" is the greatest cinematic film ever created. Ever since the first time I saw it, it's depth, intensity, special effects, and moving story have overwhelmed me. The film was so well put together that it has been able to stand the test of time over the last 20 years. Filled with powerful action, as the climax of the original trilogy, George Lucas gives us a rousing finish of the ""Star Wars"" saga in ""Jedi"".

Film Summary (Contains Spoilers For Those Who Have Not Seen It)

After ""The Empire Strikes Back"" left us hanging for 3 long years we finally find the end of the story in ""Return Of The Jedi"". Darth Vader, in emotional turmoil makes a surprise visit to a new uncompleted Death Star to oversee it's construction. The Emperor is first seen in this film as he has the ultimate plan to destroy the Rebel Alliance and bring young Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side. Luke, Lando, Leia, Chewie, and the droids all travel to Tatooine to rescue the frozen Han Solo from the crime Lord; Jabba The Hutt. After Han has been rescued, and Jabba defeated, Luke returns to Dagobah to find a dying Yoda where he learns the awful truth; Darth Vader is in fact his father. The rebel heroes regroup with the Rebel Fleet. Now joined by other species and races including the Mon Calamari the Rebels must make a all-or-nothing plan of attack to destroy the Death Star before it is completed. While Lando heads the space attack in the Millennium Falcon, the Rebel heroes must disable the Death Star's shield generator on the Forest Moon Of Endor. It is here that the Rebels happen upon the furry, but mighty Ewoks. During the the two part intense battle, a third battle must take place as Luke willingly delivers himself to Vader in an attempt to convince him to leave the Dark Side. In emotionally charged sequences Luke must face his father as the Emperor lures out his dark emotions. As young Skywalker is about to face his death at the hands of Palpatine, Vader turns on his wicked master to save his son's life.

Filled with a deep timeless story of good vs. evil, ""Return Of The Jedi"" is a spectacular, emotionally charged film that redeems the good in all of us.",Positive "when i first started watching these it became one of my favourite shows. Melissa Joan hart is very funny and talented so were the aunts and the other characters and the star of of the show Salem the cat, he was immensely funny. the first few season in my opinion were the best where Sabrina was a teenager in high school adapting to witch life. they were most funniest, most entertaining and most um... good. i'm not a fan of when they started introducing Brad and Dreamer cause i quite liked Valerie, but they were okay the problem was they were only in it for one season. if you're gonna have new people at least keep them. i didn't like Josh he was a tw*t, i preferred Harvey but then he disappeared. and they got rid of Libby! it would have been awesome if thy had been bickering in theses seven years. and Mr. craft as well, if him and Zelda got married that would have been gold! then Sabrina moves out of her aunts house and into Roxie/Miles/Morgan's house. i didn't like theses people either, it didn't really seem they liked Sabrina. Sabrina seemed to lose her charm and stuff and the aunts seem to be shunned out of her life and into they're own stupid story lines. i kind of stopped watching it for a while and the old re-runs were back and i was like whoo-hoo! LOL. i must say the last few seasons were absolutely terrible.they got rid of the aunts which sucked cause they were a big part of the show. then suddenly she lets those two freeloaders move in to the nice house when they treated he like dirt. and now she's working at some magazine shop so they're putting loads celebrity guest stars into the show, if they're in every episode it kind of ruins it. the programme just really went downhill and lost its luster. i saw the last episode. it had the aunts in it (Zelda was reduced to a candle) and she's about to get married but she runs off with Harvey the end. i would have liked to know what happened after. well thats my review and the only thing i can say is the only thing that stayed it's appealing self through the seven years was Salem the cat.",Positive "Now I recently had the viewing pleasure to watch the hilarious comedy Bachelor Party, one of my new favorite comedies, laughed until it just hurt type of movies. So I naturally wanted to see the sequel, hoping it would have the same laughs, but instead Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation is made by the American Pie generation where it's tasteless and defeats the hole purpose of the first film. Yeah, the first film has nudity, but it doesn't show in every single scene. Also the plot is exactly the same from the first, it's not always a complaint with me, but this could have been a little more original. The only thing is that I'm glad that at least no old actors from the original appear in this movie, because it would have been cheesy or really silly looking.

Ron and Melinda are engaged, after only 2 months of dating, everyone is against it. Melinda has a rich family, but they're pretty happy with Ron, and Melinda's brother, Todd is scared that Ron will take his job. So they go out on a weekend to Miami for a bachelor party and Todd is going to make sure that he'll trap Ron into a picture that will make Melinda change her mind about the marriage.

Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation has a couple laughs here and there, but over all fails to deliver what the first film accomplished. These guys, Ron's friends, were more obnoxious than likable, except for Seth, he was kinda funny. The only likable characters other than Seth is Ron and Melinda, everyone else just more or less gets on your nerves. You wanna watch this film? Just watch Girls Gone Wild, it's the same thing only it doesn't try to pretend that it's a film. Stick to the original Bachelor Party, that's the movie that's going to get you in tears of laughter.

3/10",Negative "Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!",Positive "I sought this film out because I'm a new Frain fan and wanted to see more of his work. First of all, his Irish accent is great. He's got a keen ear for dialects, it seems. His acting was marvelous, as usual. James Frain aside, I thought the film was very well done. It showed the conflict in Northern Ireland as the *mess* it really is. Both sides are guilty of grave injustices, and the men drawn into the conflict usually have very little to say about their circumstances.

Also, it is interesting to realise that not every man (or woman) that is supposedly fighting for his country, is really doing *just* that. For example, when Kenny (James Frain) asks Ginger (Ian Hart) why he does ""it"", Ginger can't come up with a morally acceptable answer. Why? Because Ginger isn't in it for the noble cause of protecting his country or the rights of his fellow Protestants...Ginger is in it for the fun of killing. He's full of blood-lust and it's the perfect job for a guy like him. In a struggle like this there are guys like Liam (John Lynch) who just want to live their daily lives and enjoy their families...guys that see all of the fighting just begats more fighting. There are guys like Kenny that are born leaders full of charisma, and they add fuel to the flames, rather they mean to or not. Also, Kenny genuinely believes in the ""cause"". He believes what he is doing will make a difference in the future...which is a bit odd 'cause his character seems too intelligent for it all. But, like a lot of other seemingly intelligent men, he is sucked into a gang lifestyle not even realizing it...'til it's too late. Then there is Ginger, a pure psycho who isn't in the fighting for any other reason but for the sheer thrill of it, which in a gangland type war makes him a valued asset, some might argue. However, now, in this film, Ginger has out lasted his worth, and has become a very dangerous loose cannon.

Everything comes to a boiling point, and predictably, the ending is a tragic one. What makes this film worthy is that is shows both sides of this ages old conflict. Being American, I can't begin to fully understand what all struggle is about. But, I do know there has to be a better way.

All in all, a well acted, touching...but troubling film.",Positive "The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).

The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.

Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.

My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films.",Positive "Saw it as critic at the 49. Internationales Filmfestival Mannheim Heidelberg.

As every film that I know and Zelenka is involved in it is simply genious.

I love his way of combining different stories and characters.

His *Knoflikari* and the truly magic *Powers* (part of Regina Zieglers *Erotic Tales IV*) are definitely worth being checked out. Go and get it, folks!",Positive "This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a ""Looney Tunes"" episode.

Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.

I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.",Negative """Return of the Jedi"" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.

Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.

Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the ""Empire Strikes Back"" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.

Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic!",Positive "I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.

The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.

Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.

Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...

You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.",Negative "I saw this film when it was originally released in 1989. I enjoyed it then, and I still do now. But what I realize now is that this is quite ""adult"" for a film with a G rating, especially the notion of dying and going to Heaven. Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise work wonderfully together, and Reynolds' singing voice is appropriate for a junkyard dog. There are some good songs ranging from upbeat (""Let's Make Music Together"") to downright emotional (""Home to My Heart""). I found the plot good, although it does go off on a tangent once or twice. The final scene of the film with Charlie and Anne-Marie is one of the saddest I've ever seen in animation. A film worth experiencing.",Positive "A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him ""You look pretty ugly"" before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.

After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims?

Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.

It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all).",Negative "Jim Carrey is one of the funniest and most gifted comedians in film today. With his hyperactive spontaneity and his rubber face he can just go crazy, and we love him for it. He has the ability to make mediocre comedies (ala Ace Ventura), and turn them into decent comedic outings. Or, in the case of 'Liar Liar', make them some of the most hilarious contemporary comedies around. Carrey has also proven himself capable of tackling dramas. He was excellent in both 'Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show.' The guy is remarkable.

Then comes 'Bruce Almighty,' an ideal vehicle for Carrey, and a premise that should have worked; Carrey, after complaining about God and how his life stinks, is enabled with God's powers. However, the script is pure recycled garbage. Now, no matter how bad a script is, Carrey's improvisation alone sometimes makes an unfunny scene funny. The problem is that there are very few opportunities for Carrey to be unleashed because so much of the comedy relies on silly special effects, only some of which are amusing. Carrey is rarely able to improvise because he has to work around the special effects. The writers apparently thought that all these special effects and superpower sequences were funny, because the rest of the movie is simply filler giving Carrey nothing else to work with besides a whiny character who is absolutely humorless. He seems more like a 5-year yearning for our attention, wanting the viewer to find what he is doing funny, when it's really just annoying.

I have always enjoyed Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' and she was superb in last year's 'The Good Girl.' She too has a gift for comedy, but with the script as linear as it is, she is simply given the part of the bitter girlfriend. She comes across as nagging, grumpy, and there is no chemistry between the two stars.

'Bruce Almighty' should have been a comedy that works. But it doesn't even have the guts to tackle the subject matter that it's making fun of; religion. A few minor giggles (his internet is Yehweh), but instead it's just turned into a comedic superpower comedy. Not to mention that it's tone shifts from silly to heavy-handed, and even black comedy at times. The movie fails on nearly every level. That's not to see it is entirely devoid of laughs, but it's close. Any movie that feels the need to incorporate scenes of a dog peeing to get it's laughs has problems. But hey, if you find pee jokes funny, go for it.

",Negative "I was around 7 when I saw this movie first. It wasn't so special then,but a few years later I saw it again and that time it made fun,a lot:)

I think the best parts of the film are: Yeti's body language and the 'special effects ' also.

If you wanna watch this movie ,don't wait for a Hollywood made blockbuster,even this film was made from approx. 1000 dollars :)

I've a copy of it.Movie and video version as well(But I don't think it had been ever shown in cinemas)

Watch it,enjoy it!!!Yeti for ever!!!",Positive "Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means ""Dawn please never comes"" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow.",Positive "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.

There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? >

There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.

Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.

",Negative "Students often ask me why I choose this version of Othello. Shakespeare's text is strongly truncated and the film contains material which earned it an ""R"" rating.

I have several reasons for using this production: First, I had not seen a depiction of the Moor that actually made me sympathetic to Othello until I saw Fishburne play him. I saw James Earl Jones and Christopher Plummer play Othello and Iago on Broadway, and it was wonderful. Plummer's energy was especially noticeable. But in spite of Jone's incredible presence both physically and vocally, the character he played just seemed too passive to illicit from me a complete emotional purgation in the Aristotelian sense. Jones, in fact, affirmed what I felt when in an interview he noted that he had played Othello as passive--seeing Iago as basically doing him over. Unfortunately this sapped my grief for the character destruction. Thus, I felt sympathy for Jone's Moor but not the horror over his corruption by an evil man. In contrast, Fishburne's Othello is a strong and vigorous figure familiar with taking action. Thus, Iago's temptation to actively deal with what is presented to Othello as his wife's unfaithfulness is a perversion of the general's positive quality to be active not passive.1 The horror of the story is that this good quality in Othello becomes perverted. Fishburne's depiction is therefore classically tragic.

Second, Fishburne is the first black actor to play Othello in a film. Both Orsen Wells and Anthony Hopkins did fine film versions, but they were white men in black face.2 Why is this important? Why should a Black actor be the Black man on the stage?3 Certainly in Shakespeare's day they used black face just as they used boys to make girls. Perhaps then, the reason is the same. Female actors bring a special quality to female roles on the Shakespearian stage because they understand best what Shakespeare's genius was trying to present. A gifted black actor should play the moor because his experience in a white dominated culture is vital to understanding what Shakespeare's genius recognized: the pain of being marginalized because of race. An important theme in Othello is isolation caused by racism. Although it is a mistake to insert American racism into a Shakespearian play, there can be little doubt that racism is still working among the characters. Many, including Desdimona's father, think that a union between a Venetian white Christian woman and a North African black Christian man is UNNATURAL.

Third, Shakespeare was never G rated. He never has been. His stage productions were always typified by violence and strong language. But Shakespeare's genius uses these elements not as sensationialism but for artistic honesty.",Positive "I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous ""Scooby Doo"" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled ""Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue"" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.

Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running ""Roobi-Roo"" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays ""GET A CLUE!"" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping.",Positive "I read somewhere (in a fairly panning review) that this is something of a live-action mecha anime, and I think they're on the right lines. I first watched this movie when I was very young and I've been dying to see it again, and when I finally did just recently all the memories came flooding back. I don't think this is to be taken too seriously - it's just a bit of good old 80's almost-a-TV-movie fun (it is set against the backdrop of a fairly dark future, although this point isn't stressed too much). What I admired most about this movie was that the dialogue didn't sound generic - no clichés, no predictable lines - all in all just good fun! Maybe time hasn't been kind to this little movie, but still I can find appreciation for it in me. It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and doesn't try to be anything other than that. Let the nerds and comic-store-guys worry about technicalities - who cares? See it for yourself and make your own decision. No-one else's opinion matters.",Positive "this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play ""Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu"" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit",Positive """Moonstruck"" is one of the best films ever. I own that film on DVD! The movie deals with a New York widow (Cher) who falls in love with her boyfriend's (Danny Aiello) angry brother (Nicholas Cage) who works at a bakery. I'm glad Cher won an Oscar for that movie. Nicholas Cage and Danny Aiello are great, too. The direction from Norman Jewison (who directed ""Fiddler On The Roof"") is fantastic. ""Moonstruck"" is an excellent movie for everyone to see and laugh. A must-see!

10/10 stars!",Positive "An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...

Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).

The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.

A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.",Negative "When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.

I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.

I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as ""wooden"" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.

Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully.

This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever.",Positive "I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences:

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy.",Positive "Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush.

Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. ""Homo-erotic"" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what?

Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from ""Lives of the Saints,"" ""A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified."" The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here.

Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: ""Mother and Son"" (1997); ""The Return"" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); ""Little Odessa"" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, ""Fathers and Sons""; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, ""The Brothers Karamazov.""

Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess.

This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, ""Russian Ark"" (2003).

As in his ""Mother and Son,"" an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.

An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as ""themes based on Tchaikovsky."" The presence of a ""sound designer"" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are ""designed.""

It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.

Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?",Negative "This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything.",Negative "Enchanted April is a tone poem, an impressionist painting, a masterpiece of conveying a message with few words. It has been one of my 10 favorite films since it came out. I continue to wait, albeit less patiently, for the film to come out in DVD format. Apparently, I am not alone.

If parent company Amazon's listings are correct, there are many people who want this title in DVD format. Many people want to go to Italy with this cast and this script. Many people want to keep a permanent copy of this film in their libraries. The cast is spectacular, the cinematography and direction impeccable. The film is a definite keeper. Many have already asked. Please add our names to the list.",Positive "This ""Debuted"" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is ""I am speechless"" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like ""It was fun to make fun of this movie"" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway ""This movie sucks"" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike",Negative "Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.",Negative "I remember this series so well. It was excellent - such strong and compelling characters, stylish and sexy ... and so different to everything else on offer at the time - and now ... I am sure that it inspired the also excellent Canadian drama ""Traders"".

Both season 1 and season 2 are available on DVD region 2 in the UK. Its a treat to watch the series again.

Season 1 is 13 episodes and season 2 seems to be 10 episodes.

Unfortunately, it seems to have ended after 2 seasons.

This series was a lot of fun.

Sometimes you can get it on special at Amazon.co.uk",Positive "The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.

But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.

worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie.",Positive Helena Bonham Carter is the center of this movie. She plays her role almost immobile in a wheelchair but still brings across her traditional intensity. Kenneth Branagh was tolerable. The movie itself was good not exceptional. If you are a Helena Bonham Carter fan it is worth seeing.,Positive "I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.

Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.

To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.",Negative "Something about ""Paulie"" touched my heart as few movies do. It is a witty, funny yet emotional movie. I'm a late comer in becoming a fan of this movie. I didn't see ""Paulie"" until May, 2004 and have since ordered the Widescreen DVD from a seller at eBay.

The special effects of showing Paulie talking are superb. My son asked me how the bird knew so many phrases.Probably my favorite part of the movie is when Paulie is in Gena Rowlands (Ivy's) company followed by Cheech Marin (Ignacio). Tony Shalhoub (Misha) plays an excellent part as the good hearted human. You root for him all the way through the movie.

You can't go wrong renting or buying this movie!!",Positive "There are good ways to make a movie and bad ways and this very much the former. This short caper exacts nothing more than what it gives to the audience. It presents a simple story, told very plainly with enough wisecracks to keep you going, then just gets better and better. Clooney's cameo is funny and very welcome but the leads including Sam Rockwell and Luiz Guzman can easily make it on their own. Likeable and funny, hilariously so towards the end, Welcome to Collinwood is a welcome addition to the heist genre.",Positive "The third Muppet movie is perhaps the most relaxed and pleasing, with the gang taking their modest college musical to the bright (yet volatile) lights of Broadway filled with typically naïve optimism. Of course, their first attempt fails and Kermit (leader of the group and author of the show) blows his top; so, the others all go their separate ways so that he won't have to feel responsible for them. Kermit himself befriends a young wannabe fashion designer making ends meet by serving food at her father's diner (the old man, then, has a line in particularly tortuous non-sequiturs!). We get the usual cameo appearances by a variety of stars: Art Carney (as a producer), James Coco (as an overzealous dog owner), Dabney Coleman (as a confidence trickster), Elliott Gould (who was also in THE MUPPET MOVIE [1979]), Gregory Hines, Liza Minnelli (as herself – having her portrait at a classy restaurant replaced by Kermit's, sporting fake moustache, as an ostensibly celebrated entrepreneur in a ruse to attract publicity to the Muppets' show), Brooke Shields, and even director John Landis (in possibly the film's funniest scene as a Broadway producer before whom Kermit appears acting streetwise and chummy and hilariously donning shades and an Afro wig!). The other Muppets more or less go through their typical paces, with (regrettably) less space given to Gonzo this time around; while Miss Piggy is something of an acquired taste with me, the scenes in which the latter spies on what she takes to be Kermit's romance with the waitress – and especially her violent reaction to this – are undeniably funny. What disappoints, however, is the climactic show itself (after a fairly redundant midsection wherein Kermit gets amnesia and eventually picks up advertising on Madison Avenue) which, rather than the expected splashy routines, procures nothing more original than the wedding ceremony of Kermit and his eternal flame Miss Piggy!",Positive "Streisand fans only familiar with her work from the FUNNY GIRL film onwards need to see this show to see what a brilliant performer Streisand WAS - BEFORE she achieved her goal of becoming a Movie Star. There had never been a female singer quite like her ever before, and there never would be again (sorry, Celine - only in your dreams!), but never again would Streisand sing with the vibrancy, energy, and, above all, the ENTHUSIASM and VULNERABILITY with which she performs here - by the time she gets to that Central Park concert only 2 or 3 years later, she'd been filming FUNNY GIRL in Hollywood and her performing style has become less spontaneous and more reserved, more rehearsed (and, let's face it: more angry) - there's a wall between her and the audience. Live performing was never what she really enjoyed - she did it because she knew it was her ticket to Hollywood, and once she no longer had to do it she's done it as little as possible (and oh, that legendary stage fright provides such a good excuse!).

Her vocals here and on her earlier Judy Garland Show appearance are incredible: Streisand could truly make an old song sound new again, and composers such as Richard Rodgers and Harold Arlen loved her for it. But by the 1970s Streisand was trying to be a ""rock"" singer, her albums pandering to the younger audiences, with over-wrought shrieking of songs that were unworthy of her effort or her voice.

In the '80s she came back with that brilliant ""Broadway Album,"" but went on and on about what a struggle it was to get it done, how ""they"" told her not to do it, etc. Oh please - when has anyone told Streisand what to do? She could have been doing good stuff like that all along, bringing audiences UP to her level instead of stooping to what she thought the young public wanted. (The ""Back to Broadway"" sequel wasn't nearly as good, as Streisand seems to feel it necessary to improve on other composers' work: if he were alive at the time, would Richard Rodgers have even recognized his own ""Some Enchanted Evening""? Rodgers, notorious for taking singers to task for playing around with his melodies, would undoubtedly have been after Streisand to sing what he'd written! She also blows Michael Crawford off the CD in their duet of ""Music of the Night"" - apparently reminding him just whose CD this is. Why does she insist on taking songs that are duets and singing them by herself, and songs that aren't duets and singing them as duets with someone else who she then goes on to diminish?)

Supposedly Judy Garland took Streisand aside and advised her, ""Don't let them do to you what they did to me,"" advice Streisand wasted no time in heeding - despite her protestations to the contrary, surely it looks like it's always been her way or the highway. Just imagine - SHE told the CBS brass how her first TV special would be done - no guests, just HER.

But nobody can argue with the results that are so evident here. Treat yourself to this brilliant musical phenomenon BEFORE she was a legend - you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference!

PS - I watched this again last night (12/01) after not having seen it for many years - it was even BETTER than I remembered! The 1st Act begins with ""I'm Late"" and includes ""Make Believe"" and ""How Does the Wine Taste,"" and Barbra's homage to childhood, ""I'm Five"" - it climaxes as Streisand appears with full (and I mean FULL) orchestra to sing ""People"" - she wasn't bored with the song yet and although it's a somewhat shorter rendition it really soars - compare it to some of her later ""auto-pilot"" versions. The 2nd act (after Streisand's ""kooky"" schtick-patter, which hasn't changed much over the years) is the famous series of Depression songs set amidst the extravagance of Bergdorf-Goodman's.

The 3rd Act is the stunner - call it ""Streisand, the Orchestra, and the Audience"" (although we never see the audience that supposedly witness this historic event). With her fear of audiences and dislike of such performing, this may have been the toughest part for her, but if so, to her credit it doesn't show. She tears through ""Lover Come Back to Me"" and the torchy ""When the Sun Comes Out"" (though I can't remember in which order!), the poignant ""Why Did I Choose You? (one of my all-time favorite Streisand performances) and offers a medley of FUNNY GIRL songs, including (of course) ""Don't Rain on My Parade"" and my favorite song from the score, ""The Music That Makes Me Dance"". Explaining that ""Fanny Brice sang a song like that in 1922, and it made her the toast of Broadway"", Streisand then sings ""My Man"", and it's almost a dress-rehearsal template for her later screen rendition in the FUNNY GIRL film (the main difference being that the black gown here is sleeveless - her film gown had long sleeves and against the black background all we saw were her hands and face), but the vocal here is more urgent and charged than her later film vocal. (Her performance of the song has everything to do with Streisand and nothing to do with Fanny Brice who, of course, never sang the song in such an all-out manner as Streisand does here or in the film - see THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD for a glimpse of Brice's more understated version.) The show ends with Streisand singing ""Happy Days Are Here Again"" over the credits.

When it was over I said to the friend I was watching it with, ""She has NEVER, EVER, done anything better!""

And she was TWENTY-THREE YEARS OLD!",Positive Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.(,Negative "This movie looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film.",Negative "I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play.",Positive "Now all the kids and teenagers of Springwood, Ohio are all dead expect for one teenager (Shon Greenblatt) is still alive. Freddy (Robert Englund) is letting him go and the teenager doesn't have much of a memory, when he's arriving in a new town. When a tough female psychologist (Lisa Zane) tries to break though the new patient. She's finds out, where he's from. She brings him along to Springwood to spark some memories but three teens (Lezlie Deane, Breckin Meyer and Ricky Dean Logan), who unexpected came for the ride. Once they arrived in Springwood, the psychologist has some memory that she did lived in that town before as a child. While Freddy knows the true secret of her true identity.

Directed by Rachel Talalay (Ghost in the Machine, Tank Girl) made a grim but somewhat oddly different sequel with some visual style and funny moments for this horror/fantasy/thriller. Yaphet Kotto (Alien) has a supporting role as a Psychologist expert on dreams. This has some ingenious visual effects (Not everyone will love the climax, especially in 3-D) and some good style in its storytelling. This one did out gross some of the film's series at the box office.

DVD has an strong anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the original theatrical trailer, Jump to a Nightmare opinion and Cast & Crew information. The ""Elm Street"" Series Box Set, the eighth disc has interviews with the the cast & crew of this sixth film. The sixth film is also in 3-D for the film climax but you could watch it at 2-D also. This is the last of the ""Elm Street"" films until Wes Craven resurrected Freddy into a different, darker style in ""New Nightmare"" and the silly but surprisingly enjoyable spin-off horror film ""Freddy Vs Jason"". Watch for Robert Shaye (Co-Owner and Co-CEO of ""New Line Cinema""), Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold, Johnny Depp and Alice Cooper in amusing cameos. Written by Michael De Luca (John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness). From a story by the director. (*** ½/*****).",Positive "I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows?",Positive "Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.

Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......",Negative "The Farrelly brothers, Bobby and Peter, are at it again. With ""Fever Pitch"" the creators of other films that have dealt with a lot of gross themes, abandon that tactic when they decided to bring Nick Hornby's film to the screen, something that it would have been hard to do. The novel, of the same title, dealt with a man's obsession with soccer, since it is set in England, where that sport consumes most of British sports fans. It's to the credit of the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandell, to transform the book into a language that would appeal to most Americans, when they make their hero, a Boston Red Sox fan.

""Fever Pitch"" is a film that presents an obsessive fan, Ben Wrightly, whose life revolves into the Red Sox season, and who is an eighth grade teacher with uncanny ways for involving his students into the subject he tries to teach them. When Ben takes four of his best pupils for a tour of a local firm, he meets, and falls hopelessly in love with the brainy Lindsey Meeks, a young woman who is going places, but at thirty, has no life of her own.

The story follows the two lovers through the ritual of attending the Red Sox, at home games, in Fenway Park. This team's fans are probably the most loyal people in the world, having stuck with a team that does marvelous things but, until 2004, never won a World Series. In fact, the ending, from what we heard, had to be changed because that was the year in which they finally won the event that had eluded them for eighty six years! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon are perfect as the couple at the center of the film. Ms. Barrymore is a natural who always surprises in her appearances in front of the camera. Jimmy Fallon, a popular television comedian, turned movie actor, has a better opportunity here than in his last appearance in ""Taxi"", in our humble opinion.

The Farrelly brothers film will satisfy their fans as well as baseball fans with this baseball tale.",Positive "As Peckinpah did with STRAW DOGS, and Kubrick with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, director John Boorman delivers an effective film about Man's violent side in DELIVERANCE, arguably a definitive horror film of the 1970s. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox portray four Atlanta businessmen who decide to take a canoe trip down the wild Cahulawassee River in northern Georgia before it is dammed up into what Reynolds calls ""one big, dead lake.""

But the local mountain folk take a painfully obvious dim view of these ""city boys"" carousing through their woods. And the following day, continuing on down the river, Beatty and Voight are accosted and sexually assaulted (the film's infamous ""SQUEAL!"" sequence) by two vicious mountain men (Bill McKinney, Herbert ""Cowboy"" Coward). Thus, what started out as nothing more than a lark through the Appalachians has now turned into a nightmare in which our four protagonists come to see the thin line that exists between what we think of as civilization and what we think of as barbarism.

James Dickey adapted the screenplay from his own best-selling book, and the result is an often gripping and disturbing shocker. Often known for its ""SQUEAL!"" and ""Dueling Banjos"" sequences, DELIVERANCE is also quite a pulse-pounding ordeal, with the four leading men superb in their roles, and McKinney and Coward making for two of the most frightening villains of all times. A must-see film for those willing to take a chance.",Positive "In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, ""Bowery Bugs"" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.",Positive "David and Bathsheba is a lavish Hollywood Biblical picture produced out of 20th Century Fox by Darryl F. Zanuck, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck {King David}, Susan Hayward (Bathsheba), Raymond Massey (Nathan), Kieron Moore (Uriah) and Jayne Meadows (Michal).

The film is based around the second Old Testament book of Samuel from the Holy Bible. It follows King David, who as a child had slain the giant Goliath, and now we find him in adulthood as the second King of Israel. A tough and assured King, David however has affairs of the heart causing great problems. For once he spies Bathsheba taking a shower {re;bath}, it 's the start of a journey encompassing adultery and betrayal; a journey that will end in the judgement of God being called upon.

Typically for the genre, David & Bathsheba is a large, grandiose production. From its excellent set designs to it's positively gorgeous Technicolor photography {Leon Shamroy}, it has enough quality to warrant sitting along side the best the genre has to offer as regards production values. Untypically, tho, the film is sedately paced and relies on 99% of its worth being driven purely by dialogue. This is not one for action fans or anyone who needs some swash to go with their buckle. This is a very humanist picture, in fact lets not beat around the burning bush here, it's a Biblical love story flecked with sins of the heart. But that is no bad thing at all, because breaking it down we find it's very well acted {Peck has a stoic yet vulnerable thing going on real well & Hayward is pushing it to the max}, and it be a fine story directed with knowing skill by the often forgotten Henry King. And although some of the dialogue is admittedly cringe inducing, the character flow is never interrupted as Phillip Dunne's (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir) Oscar nominated screenplay holds the attention throughout.

Sometimes a forgotten picture in terms of the Biblical/Swords & Sandals genres (most likely because it is a talky piece that has heart as its main selling point), but really it's well worth the time of anyone interested in the most lavish of genres. 7/10",Positive "Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way.",Positive "This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters ""If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain"". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem.

Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.",Negative "A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a ""ripoff"") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).

The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!).

The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.

There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women.",Positive "Although some may call it a ""Cuban Cinema Paradiso"", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.",Positive "Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. ""Girlfriend"" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.",Negative "Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces.",Positive "I'm a fan of TV movies in general and this was one of the good ones. The cast performances throughout were pretty solid and there were twists I didn't see coming before each commercial. To me it was kind of like Medium meets CSI.

Did anyone else think that in certain lights, the daughter looked like a young Nicole Kidman? Are they related in any way? I'd definitely watch it agin or rent it if it ever comes to video.

Dedee was great. Haven't seen in her in a lot of things and she did her job very convincingly.

If you're into to TV mystery movies, check this one out if you have a chance.",Positive "Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.",Positive """True"" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, ""here watch this"", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable.",Negative "The Last Station, director Michael Hoffman's melodrama about the last months in the life of Leo Tolstoy, begins with fog and sleep. Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lives with his family in a compound at Yasnaya Polyana, taking walks and writing and being seen to by his wife and the adherents to his ""movement"", people dedicated to his ideas of pacifism, vegetarianism, sexual abstinence and communal property who have gathered in a forest camp not far away. His wife, Sophia (Helen Mirren) wars openly with the head of his movement Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), who she claims in his efforts to convince Tolstoy to sign the rights to his works over to the Russian people is trying to steal the wealth that is owed to her upon her husbands imminent death. Observing all of this is Tolstoy's new steward, Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a naive adherent who is torn between his love of the man and concern for his wife.

Hoffman's script, which is based on the novel by Jay Parini, quite often veers itself into confused territory, building up a complex tangle of threads and opaque motivations that ultimately don't resolve themselves in any satisfying way. The scope of the film is grand, and its story should reverberate just as Tolstoy, whose beliefs foreshadowed in some ways both the Bolsheviks' and those of pacifists like Ghandi. It unfortunately doesn't, it's un-unpickable, building up with much gusto confrontations that are constantly ravelling off into nothingness. The three-way relationship between the Church, the faithful Sophia and the unbelieving Tolstoy, for example, is referenced often. In the last section of the film a mute priest in a magnificent hat even shows up, but the script never expands on this beyond awkwardly inserting it into the story as an attempt at enriching it or providing some semblance of historical accuracy. There are a ton of details in the film, but not enough attention is paid to most of them and as a result the film feels cluttered, overburdened, energetic but unfortunately pointless.

At its heart is the love story between Sophia and Tolstoy, and that story, as baffling and cramped as it is, is the reason to watch the film. Mirren and Plummer are, unsurprisingly, the best things in the film. Plummer's Tolstoy is vague, at once confused and resolute, apprehensive and full of joy and certainty. Mirren's Sophia is in full panic, in a righteous lather, forced to watch and expected to be mute as her husband gives away his time, his possessions and his money to people who are unquestionably devoted to him but also clearly in possession of their own agendas. They're great performances, all the more so given the vast gulf between the real importance of the couple's place in history and the script's ability to support that, both Sophia and Tolstoy seem willed into the film by Mirren and Plummer alone, both making the best they can out of what meagre material is there. Giammati and McAvoy, both talented actors, are unable to do the same and Giamatti's Chertkov seems neither a revolutionary nor a thief (and not both at once, either) but rather a cipher, a stand-in for a whole package of unresolved anxieties and aborted historical impulses. The scope of this thing never boils down to anything, it hitches along, getting by on the strength of Plummer and Mirren and not much else. It's interesting and pretty, but ultimately unrewarding. 4.5/10",Negative "I never seem to write a review on IMDb unless I am extremely surprised at how good, or how bad, a movie is. This film falls into the first category. Every year, I try to see all the nominees for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, even those that I know I won't like. ""As It Is In Heaven"" seems to fit the bill. The plot sounds sugary and sentimental and slow....For my tastes, which run more towards original, dark and/or daring foreign cinema (Michael Haneke, Francois Ozon, A lot of modern Japanese/Korean cinema) ""As It Is In Heaven"" does not sound particularly interesting....It didn't get released in the USA, so I sat down to watch a VCD I found in Singapore, preparing to ""cross it off the list"". After a dull beginning, ""As It Is In Heaven"" becomes that rare film where you really become inspired by what is happening on screen. Weak points: The characters in the film are pure ""stock"" characters- the Wounded Dreamer, the Town Bully, the Battered Wife, the Loose Woman Yearning for Love, the Repressed Minister....Thankfully, they're largely a likable bunch, as well as being well-written and well-acted. Ingela Olsson, as the minister's wife Inger, would have been nominated for an Oscar had her performance been in English. Strong points: the music is beautiful, and the main song, sung by Gabriella, is truly dramatic and memorable. And keep an eye out for the feisty 87-year old actress playing Olga, who is keeping up with the dancing steps as well as the younger ladies! I won't discuss the ending, but I will say that it makes sense. They're are a lot of emotional things happening in the last hour of the film, and you're not quite sure why they're happening. Although nothing is explained in words, it all makes sense as the movies comes to a fitting crescendo. **** out of *****. Probably the strongest Swedish movie I've ever seen.",Positive "Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.",Negative "After a love triangle story in Har Dil Jo Pyaar Karega these 3 stars were again chosen in this controversial flick. The film would have been considered as hit if there was not a controversy with the production values from Bharat Shah. Here director duo Abbas-Mustan did a very different and unique job as compared with their previous and after directorial ventures. They are considered as thriller makers of Bollywood. But in this CCCC they proved that they can equally handle to make a romantic family drama. Hardly there is a single action scene when Preity was being raped by Salman's colleague in her apartment, Salman slapped him.

The movie has almost all the standards and ingredients like song, story, casting, performances etc. which are required to make a movie hit. But of course for Salman's fan this was something a surprise gift from him. Why? Because for so long he has been doing roles where he has a scene to show his open body and dance la-la-la all around. His role as a rich young businessman who has no-nonsense nature and of normal attitude is really impressive. After all Madhubala, a prostitute role performed by Preity is amazing. Later when she too turns out thoughtful about her life she deserve proper attention. Her facial expressions and body language become more attractive, and focus mainly goes to her. Her previous role as a pregnant woman in Kya Kehna was not that heart-touching as it is here. Of course, this can be termed as improvement. Then Priya, a very innocent and helpless wife of Raj who only depends on him for a better result. She has nothing powerful influence in the story as the main ingredients are in the hands of Preity.

Finally, the main point of the story which is something rare and unique in itself. In real world of this age it is not totally impossible to happen such step of searching for a surrogate mother. Perhaps, many are happening in this large world where these are kept secret. And in this way the scriptwriter of CCCC has uncovered a hidden truth which is taking place in others daily lives. But still then it is a doubt.",Positive "The good fellas at Webster's Dictionary define Logophobia as the ‘fear of words'. I may just be Logophobic. For no word combination scares me more than when at the beginning of a film, credits contain the words `Produced, Written and Directed by:', and are followed by a single individual's name. Think about it. There are carpenters, electricians and plumbers, but so few jack-of-all-trades. Even the most seasoned of directors like Speilberg and Scorsese rarely take such control of their films. But there I was, all nestled in my theatre seat, popcorn in hand and about to watch The Order when hurled at me like a Nolan Ryan fastball, were the words `Produced, Written and Directed by Brian Helgeland'. Whoa!

Being a film buff, I knew of Brian Helgeland. As a writer his filmograpghy over the past 10 years would be graphed like a dotcom company's stock price in 1998. There were as many theatrical unpleasantries (Assassins, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory) as there were critical and award winning successes (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River). They seemed to alternate – one good, one bad, so knowing that his last film, BloodWork was one of the most wasted efforts in Clint Eastwood's career, I took a breath and hoped for the best. In retrospect, I should not have exhaled.

The Order stars Heath Ledger (Helgeland's A Knights Tale), as Alex Bernier, a priest in an order known as the Carolingians, who is summoned to Rome when a fellow priest is killed under circumstances that the Arch Bishop deems ‘curious'. Meeting up with Father Thomas (also of the Order and played wonderfully by Still Standings' Mark Addy), they set out to piece together the riddle left behind in the wake of the priest's untimely death.

Complicating matters is a sub plot involving Mara Sinclair (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who has escaped from an institution that was the result of her attempts to kill Alex during an exorcism. Alex has feelings towards Mara and for some reason unbeknownst to the audience, they travel to Rome together.

Nary a good nights sleep goes by and Alex is confronted by William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who claims to be a centuries old Sin Eater. A Sin Eater, as we are told, are those that eat the sins of a dying individual when the church does not, thus allowing entrance into Heaven. William, as luck would have it, is tired of a life of healing and looks for Alex to take over his role and free him from his worldly duties. Alex is reluctant, but after the death of his new love Mara, Alex resorts to the ritual of the Sin Eater to save her and the transformation is complete. Alex then searches for answers to his many queries while Father Thomas unveils the Vatican plot behind the passing of authority to his fellow investigator.

The Order is not a terrible film, but it is terribly boring. There were ridiculous special effects and no connection with any of the characters. Even in the most dramatic scene - that of Alex walking in on the dying Mara - is pale and bland and leaves us with no emotional response towards the couple's plight. Everybody seems to talk so quietly and unemotionally that the film flat lines and smelling salts could have been administered to keep me from trying to grab a quick nap in the middle of the film.

So, Mr. Helgeland, I plead with you not to try this again. Share your vision with others and allow those more experienced to help direct you in directions that are not so narrow minded and self-serving. Until then, there is nothing emanating that shows you are capable of anything more than a failing grade. Two stars.

",Negative "Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.

The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).

Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la ""Star Trek"" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired ""fright factor"" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it.

One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.",Negative "Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor McLaglen are three soldiers in 19th Century India who, with the help of a water boy (Sam Jaffe) rid the area of the murderous thuggee cult. The chemistry between the actors helps make this one of the most entertaining movies of all time. Sam Jaffe is exceptional as the outcast water boy who is mistreated by all and still wants to be accepted as a soldier in the company. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. A must see by anyone who enjoys this type of movie.",Positive "this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!

",Positive "I admit that the majority of this film was uninspired,but i was still entertained. It has a wonderful sense of frenetic energy,above average music,and the women in the film fiercely defend themselves,there's no prissies here. I can think of dozens of other films that were way worse,at least this one had an intriguing plotline along with some social commentary.They allude to how the military deals with viral epidemics,destroy everything in sight,even if it means the people you're supposed to be saving.Also, how dangerous martial law can be since at that point democracy ceases to exist. Fulci seemed to attempt to combine his earlier work(zombie,beyond,gates of hell)in an effort to somehow improve on them.He failed,but definitely not miserably,like a number of people would have you think.I have a soft spot for zombie films, so i admit that i'm somewhat biased when it comes to reviewing them.All i'm saying is that this movie is good for one time around,if there wasn't so much descension in the making of this film(fulci quit and bruno(i can hack with the best of them)mattei took over)it could have been much better and more focused.It's going to stay in my collection as fulci's zombie swan song.One surprising note, is that there is a scene in zombie 3 that cemetery man actually ripped off,i couldn't believe it myself,check it out you'll be surprised.",Negative "A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin.",Positive "for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early ""Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give ""Cut"" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.",Positive "I've never been a fan of Farrah Fawcett...Until now. She was truly amazing in this movie. The emotion she must have gone through shooting re-take after re-take doesn't bare thinking about. This was a very hard movie to watch, the subject matter is decidedly unpleasant and you feel so helpless just sitting and watching a woman being abused for what seems like an eternity. I actually felt that the whole thing deflated somewhat when her friends returned to the house and I didn't find the conclusion at all plausible. The director seemed very keen in using height in his shots and loved using mirror reflections, I believe he should have paid more attention to the pace in the second half of this piece. I'm sure this makes a heck of a powerful piece of theatre, this movie for me, although it had merit, just fell short.",Positive "For Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very disappointing.",Negative "From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real ""oy vey!"" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!

The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.

The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed.

There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.

The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.",Negative "Plotwise this is a rather silly little whodunnit masquerading as a period drama/biopic.

However the only reason I wanted to see it in the first place was because I was curious about what the great Henry Fonda was really like at his peak. I wasn't disappointed - he produces a truly warm and charismatic performance.

In addition I can honestly say that I was never really bored at any stage during the film, so a strong ***1/2 Out of *****",Positive "It got to be a running joke around Bonanza about how fatal it was for any women to get involved with any Cartwright men. After all Ben Cartwright was three times a widower with a son by each marriage. And any woman who got involved with Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe were going to end up dying because we couldn't get rid of the formula of the widower and the three sons that started this classic TV western.

Perhaps if Bonanza were being done today the writers would have had revolving women characters who came in and out of the lives of the Cartwrights. People have relationships, some go good, some not so good, it's just life. And we're less demanding of our heroes today so if a relationship with one of them goes south we don't have to kill the character off to keep the survivor's nobility intact. But that's if Bonanza were done today.

But we were still expecting a lot from our western heroes and Bonanza though it took a while to take hold and a change of viewing time from NBC certainly helped, the secret of Bonanza's success was the noble patriarch Ben Cartwright and his stalwart sons. Ben Cartwright was THE ideal TV Dad in any genre you want to name. His whole life was spent in the hard work of building that immense Ponderosa spread for his three children. The kids were all different in personality, but all came together in a pinch.

The Cartwrights became and still are an American institution. I daresay more people cared about this family than the Kennedys. Just the popularity that Bonanza has in syndication testifies to that.

Pernell Roberts as oldest son Adam was written out of the show. Rumor has it he didn't care for the noble Cartwright characters which he felt bordered on sanctimonious. Perhaps if it were done now, he'd have liked it better in the way I describe.

This was just the beginning for Michael Landon, how many people get three hit TV shows to their credit. Landon also has Highway to Heaven and Little House On the Prarie where he had creative control. Little Joe was the youngest, most hot headed, but the most romantic of the Cartwrights.

When Roberts left. the show kept going with the two younger sons, but when big Dan Blocker left, the heart went out of Bonanza. Other characters had been added on by that time, David Canary, Tim Matheson, and Ben Cartwright adopted young Mitch Vogel. But big, loyal, but a little thick Hoss was easily the most lovable of the Cartwrights. His sudden demise after surgery left too big a hole in that family.

So the Cartwrights of the Ponderosa have passed into history. I got a real taste of how America took the Cartwrights to heart when I visited the real Virginia City. It doesn't look anything like what you see in Bonanza. But near Lake Tahoe, just about where you see the Ponderosa on the map at the opening credits, is the Cartwright home, the set maintained and open as a tourist attraction. Like 21 Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes fans, the ranchhouse and the Cartwrights are real.

And if they weren't real, they should have been.",Positive "Ride with the Devil, like Ang Lee's later Brokeback Mountain, is a film of aesthetic and historical importance. Film lovers ought to see it at minimum twice as its artistic nuance is worthy to be over comprehended.

A perfect piece of art, surprising depth of humanity. I really don't recall another war film, will so capture you, will change your existing conception of history and politics, will restore your belief in humanity. After seeing so many killings, so many sufferings , you don't feel yourself numb, instead you treasure the bond between human beings more. The actors' performances haunt your heart, the music drives your mind. Some shoots, are not just some pictures, they transcend themselves, becoming the seeing of soul. Such is the true sense of film being a genre of art.

A film like this doesn't need long comments or reviews, everything it says by itself. Ovation to the cast which includes Tobey Maguire, Jeffrey Wright and Jewel Kilcher, the cinematographer and the composer of the beautiful and lyrical music, what an achievement!",Positive "Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, ""Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.

Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, ""Dawg""? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.

I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action.",Negative "Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...",Negative I recently watched Caprica again and thought I might as well come and write up a review! I first saw this right after I saw the series finale of Battlestar Galactica ( Being a big drooling fan boy of the show left me clinging onto anything I could of the shows universe )so I didn't know what to expect...but I did come out with a smile though I must admit...

The story starts off dramatically on planet of caprica and we are introduced with a variety of interesting characters...I won't give too much away but there is a dramatic event that dictates the course of the story but I suggest you watch this.

Must say...Esai Morales is one hell of an actor he pulled off a young Joseph Adama...(father of the Admiral in Battlestar Galactica)I found his acting spot on and I could believe that he is the father of William Adama from BSG...

Also Eric Stoltz fits his role precisely...! Special note it was good to see Polly Walker outside of Rome! Don't sit down and watch Caprica with the expectation of it being like Battlestar Galactica because the story line is pretty straight forward and anyone can watch it..without having to have see BSG!.

This show is a well written drama for those who like there drama with a bit of a sci-fi kick!,Positive "One of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your movies",Negative "I'm certainly glad that a film was made about Carl Brashear's amazing life story. Coming as it did during the Civil Rights era, Brashear became an inspiration for people of all minority groups not willing to settle for a status expected.

Brashear as played by Cuba Gooding, Jr. leads by example in the conduct of the life he has chosen. Very similar to Jackie Robinson who integrated baseball and made it stick by his character and conduct. As Brashear, Gooding knows that he does not want the sharecropper life that his father Carl Lumbly has and Lumbly makes it real clear to get more out of life than he's gotten.

But while Harry Truman integrated the Armed Services after World War II, the Navy still has its restrictions. A black man can only be a cook or an officer's valet, the real fighting parts are denied him. That's not good enough for Gooding who applies to become a Navy deep sea diver.

Once at the diving school at Bayonne, New Jersey, Gooding gets it all thrown at him, mostly by the Master Chief Petty Officer in charge, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro may have some leftover prejudices, but he's nevertheless a hero and one who can inspire if one can get passed racial divide.

The best thing about Men Of Honor is the chemistry between DeNiro and Gooding. They certainly come from different places, but as they get to know each other, both turn out to be Men Of Honor.

Other good performances to note are Charlize Theron as DeNiro's wife and Hal Holbrook as the head of the diving school, a guy the Navy just wish would retire for reasons you'll see.

Men Of Honor is an inspiring story about people with courage to spare and the ability to change.",Positive "I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw ""Semi-Pro"" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???",Negative "Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): ""desire is a wound on reality"", ""fantasy realized is a nightmare"", ""music is the opium of the people"" (borrowing from K. Marx), ""of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving"". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares ""you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire"" and concludes with the cineaste view that ""cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality"" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.",Positive "What a GREAT British movie, a screaming good laugh and sexy Gary Stretch too, and oh, lots of bikes and lovely Welsh countryside.

Members of our club the ARROWHEAD Bike and Trike Social Club appear in it as extras! Hooray!!

There are some genuinely hilarious bits, good acting, a good idea.

Met the director, Jon Ivay at a showing in Wareham, Dorset. A great man, down to earth and a good laugh. This film must be supported, as all great Brit movies should!

So please go and see it if you can, they have a website with cinemas that are showing it , so find one near you!

I can't wait to get the DVD. Some of our biker friends have seen the film two or three times already and can't get enough of it.

Amanda",Positive """The seventh sign"" borrows a lot from ""Rosemary's baby"" and ""the omen"" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s ""the seventh seal"" .

Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.

Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that.",Negative "After, I watched the films... I thought, ""Why the heck was this film such a high success in the Korean Box Office?"" Even thought the movie had a clever/unusal scenario, the acting wasn't that good and the characters weren't very interesting. For a Korean movie... I liked the fighting scenes. If you want to watch a film without thinking, this is the film for you. But I got to admit... the film was kind of childish... 6/10",Positive "I'm really suprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy ""Moonstruck"" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as ""Moonstruck""and it's funny too. **** out of *****",Positive "When I was 16 I saw the documentary: ""A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: ""humans did not go to the moon"". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.

And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.

But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.",Negative "I must say, this movie has given me a dual personality. I've been told again and again to SHUT UP and start speaking like a normal person. But, it's very hard... no not the wang. Did you find that disgusting and disrespectful? Well, get in the mood for a lot more. This movie is just filthy! It's not a film to show your grand-parents, but you should show it to a teenager or some immature guy at your workplace. Anyway, back to the voice mannerisms. Fortunately this site has some Ladies Man (did anyone at the studio notice that there's supposed to be a apostrophe(?) between the e and s?) so you can always have a fine little something to say to your boss or the cops. I have a sheet in my wallet.",Positive "The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film.",Positive "I first saw this movie on some movie channel (HBO?) some time ago. I was a fan of Public Enemy, NWA and other early rap and had seen CB4 in theaters. Anyway, the promo for it caught my eye, and I wanted to see what it was all about. Well, right off the bat I knew it was going to be good (WARNING!) and I was right. The parody songs alone make this movie worth watching over and over (My Peanuts), but the overall flow and delivery of the movie was great. You've got to love the satire of rap groups (obviously NWA), certain rappers (Eazy E, Flava Flav, Ice Cube), and the humor of the three members of NWH. Who can forget Tone Deaf scratching with his ass? It's too bad this movie didn't get the credit it deserved, as it was overshadowed by CB4 during their releases, but in my opinion is a much better film. If you know and like 90's 'gangster' rap, you'll be watching and laughing with this movie for a long time. If you aren't into or don't like 'rap', you'll enjoy the jokes at the expense of the genre.",Positive "Mystery Men is one of those movies that gets funnier over time. There is a naive innocence and ""niceness"" to the characters. It has become part of our family ""culture,"" and we quote the characters often. It is my favorite film of the last two years. My kids are 13 and 11 and we all three love this film. Great acting and comedy. We love Galaxy Quest and Monty Python flicks too. Okay, we're not talking intellectual here, just Family bonding!",Positive "The plot had some wretched, unbelievable twists. However, the chemistry between Mel Brooks and Leslie Ann Warren was excellent. The insight that she comes to, ""There are just moments,"" provides a philosophical handle by which anyone could pick up, and embrace, life.

That was one of several moments that were wonderfully memorable.",Positive "The problem with ""The Killer Elite"" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.

The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.

It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.

An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek ""...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous."" That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.

Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. ""You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are,"" someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.

Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.

By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. ""Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy,"" he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)

Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been ""Humpty-dumped"" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give ""Killer Elite"" real watchability.

But you don't watch ""Killer Elite"" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away.",Negative "For years I remember reading about this show ""Trouble With Tracy"" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.

Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this ""Trouble With Tracy"" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast ""Trouble With Tracy"" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what ""The Trouble With Tracy"" was. Yes, the ""Trouble With Tracy"" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.

Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively ""died"" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.",Negative "Go way back to page ten of this review section, and work your way back up. Go ahead; I'll wait.

Done? Well, then you've probably noticed the same trend that I have. You could nitpick all day long about the lame jokes, dated timing and obviously derivative plot points and shtick in 'Bogus', but this movie seems to be one of those 'hate me now, love me later"" flicks.

Bill and Ted's biggest problem was that the original appealed to those 80's kids who followed the tends and considered themselves on the cutting edge of fashion. That worked fine for the original, but obviously bombed in 1991, when no self-unrespecting slacker would be caught dead wearing anything but flannel or admitting he liked anything about the 80's. As Ted would put it: ""Dude, this is a totally deep hole. Wanna play 20 questions?""

They say nostalgia goes in 20 year cycles, and that certainly seems to be the case here. Here in 2010, those of use who grew up with Cindi Lauper and Megadeth are beginning to look back to appreciate some of those pivotal films that (like it or not) made us who we are. If you're one of those who look at 'Bogus' as if it were an outdated (""Fa gs!"") ripoff, then you're missing the point and probably spent six years growing facial hair, wearing flannel and looking like you just crawled out of bed.

In self-referencing its own origins (the Star Trek episode"" and and time traveling with a phone booth), B&T makes no attempt to hide its creators' love for homage. Quentin Tarantino, anyone? I'm not saying 'Bogus' is 'True Love,' but I do think it needs to be appreciated for what it is: a fun snap-shot of our society at a time before child psychology, Ritalin, anti-smoking ads, terrorist paranoia and the proliferation of media fear-mongering.

So, for all of you B&T haters out there...turn off your Screaming Trees CD, get that hair out of your face, go to the beach and lighten up. Narcissistic depression and intellectual ennui are SO corporate.",Positive "Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.

Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.

Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?

Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.

Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.",Negative "I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.

I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take.

I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.

One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick.",Positive "Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.",Negative "If the redundancy of getting off the boat, on the boat, off the bus, on the bus.. is a way to waste time then you should go back to the Hollywood films that wrap this part up in one montage in order to get to the money shots. and in doing so leave you unconnected and in the cinematic limbo that results from not really showing the realities of life. The long drawn out travel sequences actually allow the viewer the same frustration and 'wait- in-line' feeling the characters must endure. Frustrating? yes. Vital? Indeed. the limbo of that travel is the key to the 'rootlessness' of this Turkish family. Beautiful film with great acting. Sad, but worth it.",Positive "I looked at this movie with my child eyes, and I wasn't disappointed. The story is well-known, some abandoned orphan has to be brought to his parents by an improbable trio (mamooth - sabertooth tiger and a lazy animal)... And I don't want to forget to mention the incredible small fury animal with his hazenut. This one really made me laugh a lot during the whole picture.

Briefly : it works, it is funny and it is a ""must-see"" with your children (they'll like it).",Positive "In a performance both volatile and graceful, Al Pacino re-teams with Sea of Love director, Harold Becker.

As New York Mayor John Pappas in City Hall.

A savvy thriller thats the first film ever shot inside the lower Manhattan structure that's ground zero for the City's government.

That the other NYC locations provide the vivid settings as an idealistic mayoral aide (John Cusack) follows a trail of subversion and cover-up that may loop back to the man he serves and reveres.

Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Martin Landau, Tony Franciosa and David Paymer add more starry brilliance to this gripping tale of power.

And the power behind power.",Positive "Here's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)",Negative "I saw this movie in sixth grade around Christmas Time, and I was really excited about seeing it, and when I heard that George C. Scott was in it, I was really excited, because I really love George C. Scott! When me and my class were watching this movie, I was really into it, and when it was over, I was really impressed, I thought that it was totally fabulous! This is the best version of Charles Dickens' classic novel that I have seen so far! George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge is something else, I thought that he was the perfect choice, he was Scrooge, he is the definitive Scrooge! I've seen two different versions of A Christmas Carol, the other is the one with Patrick Stewart, but this is the better one!

What it really great about this is the acting, I thought that the actors were fabulous, everyone was, the spirits, Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit, everyone, they could not have found anyone better than the ones they had doing the parts! But the best part of the movie was George C. Scott! When I saw him, I thought that he was the absolute best! He is the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge, I do not think that they could have found someone better! I don't think that they could have found anyone better to replace anyone in the movie!

This movie is probably the definitive movie adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, and I really think that you will agree, you will think that this movie is fabulous! I am probably going to have to buy this movie on DVD, because I thought that it was totally fabulous! I totally recommend that you see this masterpiece! This is the best version of A Christmas Carol, period.

10/10",Positive "A phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.

First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a ""hero"" character that you have no vested interest in.

I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all ""b****es"" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.

I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.

This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.

Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.

Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.

Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.

Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a ""brawl"" with Cage.

Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.

Nicholas Cage screaming ""Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?"" for no reason.

Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.

And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.

Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of ""hysteria"" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.

I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.",Negative "I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection!",Positive "THIS POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS :

Although it was 5 years after the series ended and WB was currently working on Justice League, this animated movie is a welcome addition to the video library. Why? Well, if Mask of the Phantasm compliments the first 70 episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and SubZero compliments the 15 episodes of the Adventures of Batman and Robin, then Mystery of the Batwoman compliments the final 24 episodes of the Gotham Knights version of Batman. Kevin Conroy once again delivers a voice over performance that is nothing short of excellence and perfection. I admit I was a bit leery when I heard about Batwoman and all I could think about were the old 50's comics of Batman. But I was blown away by the Batwoman character, her look, her costume (which I assumed inspired Bruce Wayne to create the costume on Batman Beyond)and the fact that this movie keeps you guessing who Batwoman is all the way through. If you want to know who Batwoman is, then buy or rent the DVD. Barbara Gordon makes a cameo appearance and I think the writers were trying to hint that Bruce and Barbara had something going on between them like they did in Batman Beyond. Tim Drake appears as Robin, but his role is a small one and sadly, there is no sign of or mention of Dick Grayson alias Nightwing, which leads me to believe he has established himself in Bludhaven (his city in the comics).

Of the three suspects for Batwoman, my favorite is Kathy Duquesne, who looks an awful lot like Halle Berry. Kelly Ripa did a great job as one of the other suspects. When it comes to the villains, I'm glad the Penguin was one of them, but I did not like the fact that they replaced Paul Williams with David Ogden Stiers. Pengy just didn't sound right. Same thing goes for Robin. The new guy did okay, but just as I was starting to get used to Matt Valencia, they replaced him. It's interesting to note that Kevin Michael Richardson, who voices Carlton Duquesne is now the voice of the Joker in ""The Batman"" series. And we finally see what Rupert Thorne looks like revamped since he didn't show up in the Gotham Knights episodes. The late John Vernon will be missed. Although I enjoyed Henry Silva as the voice of Bane, if he had to be replaced, they got the right man in the form of Hector Elizondo. I only wish they could have used Two Face, Riddler, or the scary new version of the Scarecrow.

The musical score and especially the soft sounding intro were superb. I wish that was on a soundtrack and I especially enjoyed the beautiful and talented Cherie in the Iceberg Lounge along with her song, Betcha Neva. While some feel that this movie is weaker than the Mask of the Phantasm and Subzero, I find it just as strong and enjoyable as the rest, plus like I said earlier, it's a full length movie based off the Gotham Knights version of Batman, which I think gives a good balance. I would at least recommend renting this DVD first before buying it for those who might be leery of this movie, but personally, it's well worth the purchase. I give Mystery of the Batwoman a 9.",Positive "If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible ""horror"" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.

Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.

Whoever made this version of ""Prom Night"", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see ""One Missed Call"" again, at least that had some plot.",Negative "What exactly was going on during World War 11 in New Zealand when American forces were there?

This awful story of 4 sisters was really pathetic to view. Can you imagine casting Joan Fontaine as the older sister to Sandra Dee? Fontaine looked more like her mother. Even funnier was that Fontaine becomes pregnant in the film.

Piper Laurie and Paul Newman who showed such great on screen chemistry 4 years later in ""The Hustler,"" have no scenes together in this film. Laurie plays another sister who goes off to Wellington to tramp around there, despite the fact that she is married. Woe to her when her husband comes back from the war.

Jean Simmons is widowed and finds romance with a much subdued Paul Newman. There is even romance for the young Miss Dee here.

The picture has little to no meaning. Are they trying to say that all is fair in love and war? If they are, they did a poor job in selling this.

The conflict of interest with Newman and Simmons is quickly disposed of. That is what should have been quickly done to this terribly disappointing film of 1957.",Negative "For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.

She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.

The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.

Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.

So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this ""transformation"" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.

Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.

Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more ""silent"" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.",Negative """Saving Grace"" is never riotously funny, but it delivers quite a few good laughs and I enjoyed it to a significant degree. Brenda Blethyn is a fine actress, and does a good job at portraying widower Grace, who resorts to growing marijuana to pay off her massive debts. The supporting cast also does a fine job. French actor Tchecky Karyo has a funny little role. The premise alone is appealing. The idea of an over-the-hill woman growing and smoking pot sounds funny enough. And the film plays around with the premise wisely every now and then. Of course, there are flat moments, like one where two elderly women mistaken Grace's marijuana leaves for tea leaves and they start pulling childish antics at the store where they work. That was a mindless gag that didn't quite take off. The film's tone is downbeat and occasionally dull, but I got enough laughs to give this English import a recommendation.

My score: 7 (out of 10)",Positive "The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, ""Love in Paris"", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish.",Positive "I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the ""erotic"" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.",Negative "People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his ""Scary Cirus"" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.",Positive "THE JIST: See something else.

This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy ""noir"" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.

This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge.",Positive "A seemingly endless movie that really deserves a zero rating. The premise seems simple enough: Yentl, a girl interested in studying the Talmud, wants to go to school. But only boys are allowed to study, so after her father's death she decides to disguise herself as a boy to get in. She does and becomes close friends with Avigdor, who is to be married to a beautiful woman named Hadass. Hadass' family learns Avigdor's brother committed suicide, and the wedding is called off. Yentl, now calling herself Anschel, is then selected to marry Hadass. She does but it is never consummated. Yentl/Anschel and Avigdor go away for a few days, and Yentl/Anschel reveals her secret to him. The movie ends with Avigdor returning to (and marrying?) Hadass, and Yentl going to America to continue her studies although she will have to continue to do so in disguise.

The plot above seems interesting at first for a movie over 2 hours long, but there are several things that ruin it. For starters, there is the constant SINGING. (I can already hear the critics shouting.) Yes, I know this is a musical so there are supposed to be lots of songs and dance numbers. But the movie could have been improved if it were directed and played without them. The songs become tedious after a while, and there isn't as much dancing as one would expect. Many of the songs are forgettable, with no real memorable lyrics, and those with any significance could easily have been substituted by a voice-over. Only one song stands out from the rest, ""Papa Can You Hear Me"". It is obvious that most of the others were deliberately placed so Streisand could simply have a reason to show off her vocal abilities every five to ten minutes. Chances are anyone who will see this film will already know what a superb singer and actress she is, so the songs really aren't necessary.

Second, Streisand's makeup, which can be seen during her scenes as a man (the lipstick, enhanced lashes, and traces of blush are all obvious) makes it hard for the audience to believe in the Yentl/Anschel character, that she is actually serious, and fooling her new friends, colleagues, and even Hadass, into believing she is a man. Yet we are asked and expected to believe that very thing. There seems to be a contradiction, as her character talks, or rather sings, of how she doesn't think she can pull it off, but is surprised that everyone seems to be fooled because she is wearing men's clothing. This means that we are then expected to believe the other characters are so naive they can't see the other differences, such as her actions, which are clear giveaways. The facial differences alone cannot be included, as other characters in the film mention that some of their male relatives or friends didn't have a beard or other facial hair. Nevertheless, in the 1900s, if a woman dressed as a man, but wore as much makeup as Streisand's character did, and still tried to pass herself off as a man solely because she wore men's clothing, it would have been deemed unacceptable and caused an outrage. Chances are she would probably be forced to leave the town, or even the country. Therefore the ""feminine"" makeup on Streisand does not lend to the character's credibility, and only weakens the plot. If it was only applied to make Streisand look more beautiful, it should have been scrapped.

Thirdly, when Yentl/Anschel herself reveals who she truly is toward the end, we are then asked to believe that the other characters are not as smart as Streisand's and only when they learn the ""truth"" do they become a little wiser. By now it becomes more and more apparent that the whole plot is so far fetched that it is nothing more than a custom-made vehicle for Streisand to fuel.

Lastly, there are those who are fans of Streisand who will find no fault with this film, its plot, or the songs. To those I must respectfully disagree. While she has excellent vocal and acting abilities, I am not a ""fan"" of her style of singing. However, I have enjoyed many of her other features including musicals. There are even some songs of hers that I like, so I am not a ""hater"" nor have set out to bash her. I have written this review from an honest perspective, from someone who has tried their best to watch this movie - several times even - and has noted the problems within. If Streisand was interested in creating a great or even believable film, she could have done so here by not injecting her need to show off and prove how talented, beautiful and smart she is at nearly every turn. This movie does nothing more than hurt her abilities, make her appear self-absorbed, and thus turn the film into a laugh-fest unworthy of her fans or audience.",Negative "I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait.",Positive "The story concerns a genealogy researcher (Mel Harris) who is hired by her Estee Lauder-like cosmetic queen aunt. Her aunt (by marriage we are left to presume) is trying to track down her long lost family in Europe. All they have to go on is a photo of a young girl standing by an ornate music box. The researcher heads to Europe and conducts her search in places like Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. The scenery is the real thing and is actually shot on location (unlike a Murder, She Wrote where Jessica is supposed to be visiting a far-flung locale and Lansbury never left Burbank). Anyway, she meets a young man who is also searching to solve a family mystery of his own and they team up to track down clues and menace bad guys. The dialogue, particularly the romantic dialogue, is terrible. I watched this because of the scenery but the script was so bad that I stayed on just to see if it would get worse. It did. Acting was also off. I can see why Mel Harris's career never really took off after thirtysomething, but she is adequate (seems too old for her co-star though). But, the supporting players are straight out of the community playhouse. I also lost count of how many times they say ""Budapest"" to each other. Yes, it is pronounced Bood-a-phesht. We know, okay? I realized halfway into the film that this had to be one of those Harlequin movies and sure enough it is. Guess that says it all.",Negative "Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in ""The Divorce of Lady X,"" a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.

We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.

The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing.",Positive "I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.

What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.

This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching.",Positive "My Super Ex-Girlfriend is an entertaining movie no more no less.

The story is quiet simple. Matt Saunders(Luke Wilson) meets Jenny(Uma Thurman) on the subway and hooks up with her. In the beginning of their relationship everything seems to be OK, but then Matt finds out that she's G-Girl. At first that seems really cool to Matt but it turns out that G-Girl is very jealous and needy. So he decides to break up with her and hook up with his colleague Hannah(Anna Faris). This makes G-Girl very mad and she starts to avenge herself on her former boyfriend.

What I liked most in the movie are the scenes where G-Girl avenges herself on Matt. It was also nice to see Anna Faris in another role then her character from the Scary Movie saga.

I give this movie a 7 out of 10 and recommend it to anybody who likes a nice comedy.",Positive "Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.",Positive "I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance.",Positive "Picked up the movie at the flea market for 4 bucks, sure did get my moneys worth!. Could care-less about the hot babes but the animation just blew me away after a steady diet of Simpsons (Sorry Mr. Groening). The best part, facial expressions. Recommend multiple viewings with some cool tunes, good friends and a couple of cold ones!",Positive "Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.

I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.

It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.

Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.

Don't watch this film.",Negative "I had watched ""The Eye"" before I watched this one. I really liked ""The eye"", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this ""Bangkok haunted"" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... ""Bangkok haunted"" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as ""The eye"" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment...

100% boring.

*My rate: 2/10",Negative "Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement.

I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of ""Wowsers"" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.

I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend ""The Iron Giant,"" which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1",Negative "The arrival of White Men in Arctic Canada challenges the freedom of a fearless ESKIMO hunter.

W. S. Van Dyke, MGM's peripatetic director, was responsible for this fascinating look at life in the Arctic among the Inuit. His production was on location filming from April 1932 until November 1933 (although some annoying rear projection effects show that some of the shooting took place back at the Studio). While considered a documentary at the time, we would likely term it a 'docudrama' as it is scripted with an intriguing plot & storyline.

The film shows the daily life of the Eskimo, both Winter & Summer, and in fact starts in the warmer time of the year without any snow or ice in sight. The constant striving for food is depicted, and the viewer gets to watch the exciting hunts for walrus, polar bear, whale & caribou. The native language is used throughout, with the use of title cards; the only English is spoken by the fishermen & Mounties encountered by the Eskimo. In fact, it is the arrival of White Men, both good & bad, and the change they make on Eskimo society, which is a major element in the narrative.

This Pre-Code film deals in a refreshingly frank manner with the Eskimo moral code, particularly with their practice of wife-sharing, which was an important and completely innocent part of their culture. In fact, the entire film can be appreciated as a valuable look at a way of life which was rapidly disappearing even in the early 1930's.

None of the cast receives screen credit, which is a shame as there are some notable performances. Foremost among them is that of Ray Wise, playing the leading role of Mala the Eskimo. Wise (1906-1952) was an Alaskan Native of Inuit ancestry and is absolutely splendid and perfectly believable in what was a very demanding part. As handsome as any Hollywood star, he would continue acting, using the name of Ray Mala, in a sporadic film career, often in tiny unbilled roles.

Lovely Japanese-Hawaiian actress Lotus Long plays Mala's loyal second wife; the names of the fine actresses playing his other two wives are now obscure. Director Woody Van Dyke steps in front of the cameras as a strict North West Mounted Police inspector. The two decent-hearted Mounties who must deliver Mala to Canadian justice are played by Joe Sawyer & Edgar Dearing, both longtime movie character actors. Danish author Peter Freuchen, upon whose books the film was based, has a short vivid role of an evil wooden-legged sea captain who unwisely rouses Mala's icy wrath.",Positive "that kid a is such a babe; this movie was no Titan A.E.(of which it is in many ways modeled after) but still came off as entertaining, the fact this lost to a piece of monkey crap like Tomb raider makes wanna cry; includes some of the most entertaining characters i've seen in disney film",Positive "This is a wonderful movie about a brothel in a fishing village, that could be best described with scene constellations and direction of old Kurosawa's works, combined with Dostoyevski's topics of human psychology (O-shin - Sonia Marmeladova ), Shakespeare's drama and Hans Christian Andersen's tragic and cheerfulness. The screenplay is wondrous, the scenes are colour- and beautiful some scenes stay really imprinted in my mind. The plot is interesting and unpredictable - each of the characters is very well developed and interesting - there is also a little action, so if you don't like all the sentiments you'd also come to your costs - . It is not about mysterious Geishas and proud Samurai with their Bushido pouring all out of them, but about life, work and kinds of people found everywhere at any time. A lovely and fascinating tribute to Kurosawa, certainly worth seeing.",Positive "One of my favorite movies, with a very nostalgic ending. The movie is about the Sullivan family, obviously Michael Sullivan (the father) is one of the main members of the mafia, the killer to say it this way, and an expert one. One of the kids wants to know the work of his father (a terrible mistake), so he hides on his father's car and well, he sees Tom Hanks in action to say it this way.

Mafia doesn't rules, in Mafia nobody wins, when they want you out, they take you out. Of course you can see anyone who works at the mafia with a giant house, the best car in the world, whatever you like, but make a wrong work, or make something your ""boss"" doesn't want, and you're fired, and killed.

You can see what I mean in the movie, Sullivan Jr. sees something he didn't had to see, and well, almost all his family gets killed for that ""wrong thing"" his son did. The movie is really entertaining, you see how the Sullivan's live after being chased by the mafia, or kinda of that.

This movie is kinda of sad, shows us about revenge, those dirty works people do, almost everything you like. Hopefully the guy is reading this comment doesn't works for the mafia, and if you work at the mafia make yourself a favor and get the hell out of the country before you get killed by your boss and their workers.

This movie receives: 10/10",Positive "Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.

BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.

Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.",Negative "I had the opportunity to see this film debut at the Appalachian Film Festival, in which it won an award for Best Picture. This film is brilliantly done, with an excellent cast that works well as an ensemble. My favorite performances were from Youssef Kerkour, Justin Lane , and Adam Jones. Also, there are some great effects with dragonflies and cockroaches, that I was surprised to find out that this film was done on a small budget. The writer-director Adam Jones, who I believe also won an award for his writing, does an excellent job with direction. The audience loved this movie. Cross Eyed will keep you laughing throughout the movie. Definitely a must see.",Positive "For a ""no budget"" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.

The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!

I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors.",Positive "Devil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category.

It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing).

That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, ""no one expects the Spanish Inquisition"" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.",Negative "As a horse lover one can only appreciate this movie. There are few movies that show horsemanship as this one does. I would love to know if Brian does his own riding in the film. Would also like to know if he enjoys horses. Brian has been in a lot of movies where he has ridden. Where did he learn to ride? The only part that is hard for me to take is that the riding scenes are always full tilt, like a horse can run forever at full steam. The camera-work is first rate and captures the horses in a way that shows how dangerous things can be on top of a horse. It would be very interesting to know how they went about casting this movie to find all of the very good horseback riders.",Positive "Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the ""prequel"" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.

This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.

The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.

If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.",Negative "foywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this.",Negative "The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling.",Negative "Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice (""we are all special friends""); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.",Negative "This is about a mad scientist who creates a half shark - half man type critter on an uncharted island, then calls up all his old business and academic buddies to come and see his creation (evil laugh) but actually he wants his sharkman to kill them! Lots of bad GCI, goofy plot elements, and babes sweating in tight T-shirts follow.

These monster movies all follow a similar formula, but this one spices things up with a bit of humor (I guarantee the folks who made this had tongues firmly planted in cheek), not to mention the sexy babes. But let's mention those sexy babes - several hot babes, in tight T-shirts, sweating profusely. One's in her undies at the beginning, another at the end. Thank you, thank you, makers of bad movies! The plot is full of goofy stuff, a guy drives up in a jeep, slams it right into a tree, then offers to fly everyone off the island in a helicopter. Yeah, um, well, how 'bout we think about that for a while; we'll get back to you. The sharkman is hilarious - either awful CGI or an equally comedic guy in a rubber suit. The mad scientist gives a pretty good performance; he's evil, that's his motivation, he makes no apologies.

Overall, if you want a stupid, FUN B-movie, this one should do the job.",Positive "This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song ""piyu bole"" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized.

Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.

This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.",Negative "`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.

`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.

The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.

The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress.

A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.",Negative "This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!",Positive "I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little ""girlish"".

The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing.

When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit ""old"". I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.

It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)

09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo!",Positive "If you have never viewed this film and like old time veteran actors, this is the film for you. Seeing Frank Sinatra when he was very young and extremely thin with sunken in cheeks and a wonderful voice which sang some great old songs. Michele Morgan, (Millie Pico) gave an outstanding performance with plenty of dance and musical numbers. Leon Errol, (Cyrus Drake) gave a great supporting role along with Victor Borge, (Sir Victor Fitzroy Victor) who performed classical piano and no slap stick comedy like he did in his career. This is not a great musical, but Frank Sinatra was a great joy to see at the beginning of his career in the 1940's.",Positive "The Waiting Womans Ward of a large lying-in hospital, with all its joys and sorrows, is the place where LIFE BEGINS.

This nearly forgotten drama is a fine little soap opera, replete with comedy and tragedy, all tied into the lives of the maternity staff and their patients. The frankness with which the subject matter is handled points up the movie's pre-Code status.

Marvelous Aline MacMahon, as the sympathetic head nurse, is the calm center of the film, the rock around which all the currents flow. Able to handle any crisis or emergency, she is the mothers' best, sometimes last, friend. Surrounding MacMahon is a bevy of excellent costars: Loretta Young as a convicted murderess released from prison long enough to give birth; Eric Linden as her frightened young husband; brassy Glenda Farrell as a dame who hates children; sweet Clara Blandick as a very mature mother in for her sixth birthing; Preston Foster & Hale Hamilton as thoughtful, compassionate doctors and Frank McHugh as a comically frantic father-to-be.

Movie mavens will recognize Bobs Watson as a wee tyke who wants to see the Stork; Paul Fix as a nervous husband who promises to behave like a `little soldier;' Gilbert Roland as a distraught Italian husband and Elizabeth Patterson as a snooty doctor's wife interested in adopting Farrell's son - all uncredited.

There are a few absurdities in the plot - some of the mothers are obviously much too old; Farrell becomes blatantly drunk in the Ward but none of the staff seem to notice; an obviously psychotic patient is able to wander around at will - but this really only enhances the quirky entertainment value of the film and keeps things from becoming too serious.",Positive "This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic.",Positive "Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.

So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.

Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.",Negative "I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.

I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.",Negative """Spaced Invaders"" is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, ""SI"" has really the potential of a comedy like ""Monsters Inc."" or ""Spaceballs"". Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum!",Positive "The cast was good, and I thought it was a good performance from Christopher Lloyd, whom I like from previous movies. The movie was a great family movie, nothing that would make you worry to show it to younger kids, a good story line, lots of laughs, lighthearted and enjoyable. If you want to entertain children without being bored to tears this fits the bill. Kid pleasing, and not difficult for a parent to watch, either.",Positive "Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories – a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.

To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.

Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).

Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.

But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy – and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need.",Positive "Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.

A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.

After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.

Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.

Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.

Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.

Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.",Negative "This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.

For some, it seems, this ""modernization"" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.

Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.

There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed ""significance."" The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. ""It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain."" Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.

Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.",Negative "The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.

On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars.",Positive "This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie.",Positive "As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...

As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the ""team"" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...

I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...

Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...",Negative "It' just funny, watch it!!!

OK they want 10 lines so there: This is a spoof of 50s/70s werewolf movies. Lots of satire, some political. Feels like an early Clouseau movie (probably due to Alan Arkin), but with less slap stick. If you like the Naked Guns movies you'll like this too (once again less slapstick in this one).

Actually, the humor ranges from light sexual innuendo (unavoidable in a teen comedy), to really poignant socio-political satire. The transformation of the Moon High School from 50s to 70s is really funny. The sequence with the changing presidential portraits is brilliant! OK maybe not brilliant but still hilarious. There are tons of (histarical) cracks starting from the 50s cold war paranoia and the late 70s inflation.

Anyway, just watch the movie if you get a chance!",Positive "I had pleasure to watch the short film ""The Cure"", by first time director Ryan Jafri. What really impress me are the camera work and music.

I think many young filmmakers (as I myself am one of them) would experience hard time with cinematography when just start making of an indie. We see the output are not exactly what we imaged or below our ambitions. But this film, directorial debut from a young director, handled very well on screen. The camera motion, color, lighting, compositing all contribute to the story and emotion of the film.

And music, as a key element of film language, helps a great deal too.

It's hard to portray a woman's heart, her desire, her fear, especially in a short. But still, I have to admit I am not a fan of v/o (narration), especially when the film is advanced by narration, instead of shots and cuts. My personal feeling to some of the narrative part is, my guess was the narrator tried a bit too hard. So the energy pushes audience back from the emotion of the film.

Overall, it's a short film nicely done, I could see the input from a director. Way to go, Ryan! Greeting from China, looking forward to your next.

tim",Positive "With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. ""epic"" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean ""legend"" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office ""giants"" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised ""Dallas"" was the authentic ""heir,"" even if contemp(tuous) latterday ""Texans"" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative ""president"" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, ""supporting"" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, ""Giant"" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.",Negative "This movie awed me so much that I watch it at least once a year. At times I find it uncomfortable. At times I find it empowering. And I always find the characters human and real. It is a movie that shows you the gritty reality of life in LA, starting with the recurring helicopter search lights scanning for the dangers lurking so close to the ordinary lives being carried on by the characters. It is also a movie that shows you how the kindness of a stranger can change your life and empower you to make a difference. Grand Canyon reminds you that every action you take, whether intended or not, has powerful repercussions. I found this movie to be similar in many ways to Robert Altman's film Short Cuts. Both had a star-studded roster of perfectly cast actors & actresses and both movies allowed you to gradually see how the the characters interrelated with one another and affected each other, for better or worse. Grand Canyon did a better job of providing a cohesive message, (hope in the face of despairing reality), than Altman's film, although I found them both intriguing in their own way. This film is a definite must see!!!",Positive "While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.

Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.

The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.

Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.

Plain and simple.

Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>",Negative "John Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.

An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 4/10",Negative "Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually.",Positive "boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is.

The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.

Maybe next time knox.

Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.",Negative "For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter.",Positive "Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.",Positive "I can't believe the likes of Guillermo del Toro and Kim Bassinger got involved ins this piece of garbage! The script is so poorly written and the directing so weak (both by the same person) that its hard to find more one-dimension characters in a film. The dialogs are so lame that this so called thriller got laughs out of the few fools that got into the theatre. The setup it's tricky, inviting you to believe you are going to watch a chilling thriller and suddenly it turns out into the most stupid persecution film. Bassinger's character is so dumb, that she actually stops to scream to God ""Where are you!"" so the people after her can follow, and then takes a leak!!!! And then she apparently got into the smallest wood in the world, I mean, she runs all over the place and the killers never loose track of her, and this happens in the middle of the night. It really makes me wonder, is that really the best writing people in Hollywood can find that they spend millions producing it.",Negative "I attended one of the premieres last night and have the following observations:

1. Just because you've directed a ton of music videos DOES NOT make you qualified to make movies. The movie had an overabundance of lingering shots that made no sense, horrible angles, and terrible lighting. The editing didn't help this mess at all. When ""Dixie"" shows up late for the memorial service her mother remarks about her hand but it's never clear what the heck she's talking about.

2. The plot had promise, but the script was thin and full of Ford Truck sized holes. We never get to understand what drives the characters, what's really behind the conflicts they all have with each other or exactly how they resolve them. Sixteen years of distance is wiped out in 4 days seemingly by magic. The deep conversations were marred by stupid clichés. (In fact, the whole town was one big cliché of southern life.) Half the audience groaned when Toby drawled ""Ya got my blood runnin through your veins gurl""...and we were treated to that insipid line not once, but TWICE! The revelations were yawn inducing, and the dramatic confessions boiled down to ""I was stupid and stubborn"".

3. The acting was okay considering the wreck of a script they had to work with. Toby was dark and brooding most of the film, but when he smiled and lightened up he was charming. It's a shame he didn't have more screen time like that. Kelly Preston's acting chops are pretty rusty and it shows. Lindsay Haun is talented and it's certainly not her fault the writers made her character so unlikeable in the beginning that you don't blame her father for not coming to look for her. Burt Reynolds and Tess Harper were able to make more of this movie but still looked more or less lost. (And indeed, their characters get lost in this film!)

4. If you're a Toby fan you'll love the songs. But often the movie felt like a scene was forced in just so they could feature one of his songs--or the artists on his record label. For instance, the movie's official love song is ""Crash Here Tonight"". You'd think that would play around a tender love scene, but nope...we hear about 45 seconds of it as he's heading to a memorial service. It was as if they said ""well, we gotta use this song somewhere"". The song ""Broken"" is haunting and the best thing to come out of this movie.

In summary...a promising plot never fully develops and the movie is horribly uneven as it forceably tries to be a vehicle for Toby Keith's music and product placement for Ford Trucks. It goes from being about people rebuilding broken bridges to trying to be about the power of music but the story is told so poorly that both points get lost in this overgrown music video. I like Toby and really wanted to like ""Broken Bridges"" but the people he counted on to make this movie let him down and deserve one of his famous boots you know where.",Negative "Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world.",Positive "I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be",Negative "I'm glad the folks at IMDb were able to decipher what genre this film falls into. I had a suspicion it was trying to be a comedy, but since it also seems to want to be a dark and solemn melodrama I wasn't sure. For a comedy it is amazingly bereft of even the slightest venture into the realms of humour - right up until the ridiculous ""twist"" ending, which confirms what an utter waste of time the whole movie actually is. It is hard to describe just how amateurish THE HAZING really is. Did anyone involved in this film have any idea at all what they were supposed to be doing? Actually worth watching so that you can stare at the screen in slack-jawed disbelief at how terrible it is.",Negative "Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. ""Food of the Gods,"" or ""Willard"" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...

**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography.

--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...

The Bad:

--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart.

--The acting is extremely poor.

--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well.

--Booooooooooooring.

--Been done before--plenty of times.

--Stupid story, just stupid.

--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.

--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog.

--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.

The Ugly:

--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, ""Scarecrow"" (2002) or ""House of the Dead."" Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.

Memorable Scene:

--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.

Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10

Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 1/10

Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.

(www.ResidentHazard.com)",Negative "This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.

One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale.",Negative "I love Korean films because they have the ability to really (quiet eerily really) capture real life. I tend to watch Korean movies just for that reason alone. I've seen this directors other movies before. The one that comes closest to the feelings I got from this is Oasis and another awesome film called This Charming Girl.

However, my title summary is supposed to be from a Chrstian perspective so I'll just start doing that instead of just showering it with praise.

For a non Christian perspective Director Chang-dong Lee has captured an unbiased and almost eerily real portrayal of a modern Protestant church (regardless of denomination) warts and all. I've always been waiting for a Christian film that truly portrays the darker recesses of church life. Because Christian films tend to speak in a language that is different to those they want to share their faith to. Many films with religious undertones, though having good motives, tend to just have the resonance of a Disney film or after school special. They need to show life as it is. Real people curse, real people lust, real people fall. And though Christians believe that salvation is available to those that seek it, we are still challenged by the everyday horrors of this life. And Do-yeon Jeon's character is a totally honest and almost brutal portrayal of a woman that found God, but because of life's bitter realities, loses that love for Him she once had. She doesn't deny God exists. It is just that she refuses to accept to live with the idea that He is an all loving and forgiving God.

In her decent to the edges of morality and madness, her character asks questions that are in the mind of every one, religious or not.

""If God is Love, why does He allow such terrible things to happen?"" This film doesn't answer that, rightly so. And I believe the last 10 minutes of the film, though open to interpretation, leaves us with a hopeful future for our main character and brings the idea of ""secret sunshine"" full circle.

I don't believe for a second that this film tried to be religious or had in any way tried and set out to be that. There in lies the reason why it worked even more. It's real, it's honest. And because of that, it is by far the best summation of a real Christian life I have seen on film.",Positive "Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.",Positive "I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem.",Positive "It's pretty clear that the director and production crew set out to paint a less than flattering picture of the Palestinian girl and her family. The film and it's website tries to imply that Ayat has a secret reason for blowing herself and Rachel up- a boyfriend problem- perhaps pregnancy. Neatly glossed over is the fact that Ayat had herself just witnessed the death of a close friend at the hands of the Israelis'-just outside her home. Gosh,so why on earth would a young, pretty, intelligent girl with plans for college go and do such a thing? Could it be that the hormonal, emotional teenager was traumatized by seeing seeing someone she loved die before her very eyes? This detail merits all of 5 seconds in the movie. Another neatly sidestepped detail is that Avigail Levy, Rachels' mother, could have prevented the destruction of the building the Akhras family lived in(along with 22 other families). One distinctly gets the impression that she's offering this as a ""concession"" - should Mrs. Akhras agree to speak with her.""why should I?"" she says.(since the movie was made the home has been destroyed- apparently the interview didn't result in what she wanted- so bring on the bulldozers)Mrs Levy claimed that she ""wanted the movie to be cathartic as well as a symbol of hope, a chance to transcend entrenched hatreds""- instead she uses it as an excuse to harangue Ayats mother, while dangling the house as a carrot.Moreover although the two women live only 4 miles apart, she is so out of touch with the realities of the occupation for her Palestinian neighbors, that she really thinks that Mrs. Akhras can just drop over for a cup of coffee?Please.And she forgoes the one chance she had to meet Mrs. Akhras in person and see what kind of life she lives.(the Akras family originally came from Jaffa, but now live crammed into a refugee camp only 4 miles from where the Levys live in comparative luxury.Any sympathy I would have had for the obviously well to do Mrs. Levy is dissolved by her air of self-righteous bitchiness.By contrast, Ayats mother comes off as kind,forthright and loving- in spite of the best efforts by the post production crew to paint her and her family as monsters. Heck even the music and sound design was one sided- I guess the muezzin sings ALL day every day 4 miles from the Levy family home, always in a sharply contrasting key from the sappy new-age music that scores this drab excuse for a documentary.Also there is the small matter of translations - Mrs. Levy DIRECTLY addresses the camera in English when she has something worked out to say ahead of time, Hebrew when she doesn't. Mrs.Akhras spoke only Arabic which received sometimes a TRANSLATION, sometimes TRANSLITERATION, always awkward, and very suspect for a supposedly objective movie.They also ""sweated"" her under the lights, while Mrs. Levy sat in (air conditioned) comfort.Rotten editing for Mrs. Akhras' segments too. I gave it a 2 because I liked Ayats mother and father, who seemed like good decent people. Shame on HBO, producers and director, for releasing such a stink-bomb.",Negative "After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10",Negative """Pet Sematary"" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, ""Pet Sematary"" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.",Positive "This is a very light headed comedy about a wonderful family that has a son called Pecker because he use to Peck at his Food. Pecker loves to take all kinds of pictures of the people in a small suburb of Baltimore, Md., and manages to get the attention of a group of photo art lovers from New York City. Pecker has a cute sister who goes simply nuts over SUGAR and is actually an ADDICT, taking spoonfuls of sugar from a bag. There are scenes of men showing off the lumps in their jockey's with grinding movements and gals doing pretty much the same. It is rather hard to keep your mind out of the gutter with this film, but who cares, it is only a film to give you a few laughs at a simple picture made in 1998.",Positive "I just want to add my two cents worth, and forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been posted, but I feel it is worth reminding people of the everlovin' genius of Damon Runyon. Without the wonderfully street, hilarious writings of Damon Runyon this film would never have been made - nor most of the other great classics that deal with gamblers & the like from before 1960. Damon Runyon worked as a newspaper man, and he was from Colorado, but he sure did _get_ the street scene of the East Coast. If you are not a dedicated fan of old Hollywood comedies, I would recommend a few other flicks from Damon Runyon's writings; ""the Lemondrop Kid,"" and ""Little Miss Marker,"" both feature Bob Hope, who, aside from his politics, has always been a funny man. (As a West Coast liberal, I find his politics fairly funny, too!) Damon Runyon lives!!!!",Positive "There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on ""drunken rampage"" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted ""Jews, Gypsies etc"", which is ""worse than Nazis"". KGB was looking for so called ""zionist"" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called ""russian proverbs"" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to ""Good shepherd"" instead.",Negative "The wife of a stage producer in London hopes to fix up the American song-and-dance man starring in her husband's latest show with an acquaintance, an American girl who makes her living modeling fashions in society circles. Unfortunately, the couple has already met on their own, with the girl thinking the guy is actually the show producer married to her friend (the fact he's not wearing a wedding ring should have discouraged any misunderstandings!). Wafty Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical is eventually dragged back down to the earth by Dwight Taylor and Allan Scott's idiotic script, which is full of juvenile behavior. Astaire and Rogers don't just 'meet cute'--they meet ridiculously (he's tap-dancing like a madman in the hotel suite above hers and she complains). Audiences of 1935 probably didn't care how these two were going to get together--as long as they did so, and happily. Seen today, the central characters appear to have no motivation to end up in each other's arms: he plies her with flowers (after telling his friend he wants to remain ""fancy free"" in the love department) and she gives him the brush-off. Nothing that a little dancing couldn't cure! This glamorous twosome are as deliberately unreal as are the London and Venice settings, but we watch simply because the leads are Fred and Ginger. It's a fantasy for have-nots...ones who don't mind the dumbed-down plot. The musical moments do break up the monotony of the contrived scenario, yet fail to transcend the surrounding silliness. ** from ****",Negative "I have to say, as a BSG fan I wasn't exactly sure what I'd think of this show. I saw it on the big screen at the Arclight cinema tonight (as part of the Paley Center screenings), and the cast and film makers spoke after-wards. Ron Moore said they 'wanted to make a clean break from Battlestar, and do something different, and that yes they would lose some fans but hopefully they'd gain others"".

Even without their talk, I am now a fan of the new show. But here's what I thought of the film.

I loved it. It was really very good. I guess I'm a true sci-fi (or 'syfy' - do I really have to type that?) geek, because I'd totally watch this as a series. It has a strong and rich story, and kept my interest.

It starts with a small group of teenagers plotting something, which to me was the weakest part and a bit confusing. The actor playing ""Ben"" should have given us more of a glimpse into his intense beliefs. The actress playing ""Zoe"" seemed a little posy, but she was playing a teenager (and I'm sure I won't be the only one who thought ""Zoe"" was a cylon at first, perils of being a BSG geek). If they're hoping these will be the new Bamber/Helfer/Park, they may want to rethink it. Surprisingly, it was the adults that captured the audiences attention.

Eric Stoltz gives a stellar performance as Daniel Greystone, a man so haunted by his family tragedy that he jumps at the first chance of getting out of his grief and doesn't let go. He does a chilling and enthralling job of conveying his character's sly knowledge of the inner world of computers and people, especially in a scene in which he spins a web for the young teenage friend of his daughters, traps her, then dismisses and releases her. No sign at all of the 'serial killer' he played on Gray's Anatomy, really impressive acting.

Equally as strong though not in it nearly as much is Paula Malcomson as his wife Amanda Greystone. She is just as smart and well written and beautifully played as Stoltz's part, and I completely believed that they are a couple, and a couple that have been together forever and have a strong relationship, something rarely seen these days. I look forward to seeing what happens with this family, and hope they give her as much to do as Roslin in BSG- she is strong and smart and when she lashes out at her kid, you cringe, it's really great. Not to mention her eyes, which could hold magical powers, that's how intense they are. The scene where she takes on the government agent- very short scene, but beautifully played- really gives you an idea of her power.

The other part of the show that did not work 100% for me were the scenes with Esai Morales, and the mafia type clan of his. He does a good job overall, but I did not believe in this mobs power, nor intimidated by their threats. I found myself wishing that this whole story line was a bit more mysterious and hard to figure out; the way it is presented is almost an homage to the Godfather, they kind of hit you over the head with it a bit. But given time, I can see how this will develop into an interesting 'Upstairs/downstairs' kind of thing, with the poor minorities (Morales et al) versus the rich folk who rule the planet (Stolz et al). And to be honest, I did enjoy it when he spoke to his son about the origin of their name- that was a very well played scene.

Note to BSG fans, the boy playing 'Willy Adama' doesn't really look much like Olmos, but he's just a kid. Whether or not he'll be featured any more than he was in this film, who knows? I sure couldn't tell. But it didn't bother me, because he wasn't as interesting as everything else going on around him.

Polly Walker plays 'Sister Clarice', and she's chilling and odd in every scene she's in. I'm not sure where she'll go or who she'll end up with, but I was very impressed with her acting. In this film she was sort of on the side, but obviously being set up to play a very important part later on. She was nothing like her character in ""Rome"", something I always find impressive in actors.

One nice surprise- the music is actually better and less obvious than BSG, even though it's the same guy doing it, Bear McCreary. It has a haunting and unusual approach that took me by surprise, I'd buy this score if I had the chance.

As to the 'panel discussion' after the show, it was hosted by Seth Green. Ron Moore was very smart and articulate, David Eick was cracking wise (much like his video diaries), Esai Morales told a long story about how he was cast, and Eric Stoltz was very funny and didn't really answer the questions ( but I've always had a thing for him). Paula Malcomson was tough (she took Seth Green to task for mistakenly saying she was on '24'), and the girls who played Zooey and Lacey were both darling. Grace Park and Tricia Helfer were there as well, answering questions about how they did the scenes acting with themselves on BSG. Overall a very interesting and wonderful evening.

I'm giving the show a 9 out of 10, and very much looking forward to watching it all unfold.

NOTE: I just watched this a second time and really hope they explore what the HOLOBAND was originally made for. I have no idea what that may be, but it holds a great deal of fascination to me.",Positive "I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.

However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.

All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!",Negative "All I can say about the Necromaniac/Schizophreniac 2 series is... if you are even remotely ""PC"" or don't have a seriously messed up sense of humor, then you probably wont get it. As sick and disgusting as this movie is, it really is a comedy and not a ""horror"" movie at all. If you can appreciate somebody who pushes the bounds of good taste and political correctness to the most extreme limits imaginable, to the point where is becomes so out of hand that it's comical, then you must see this to believe it. This movie is so out of control that a major film studio couldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole (with a condom on the end). In my opinion though, the best, most extreme pieces of art come from way underground. If you don't stick to the same old formula that people are used to seeing, then they reject it.

I have seen stacks of terrible, boring, z-grade, Indy movies that were just a waste of a perfectly good VHS tape or DVD-R. I have also seen stacks of stink bombs coming from the big named studios that were a complete waste of millions of dollars. When a NO BUDGET film like these two from Ron Atkins/John Giancaspro come out and blow all of the other ""shock"" films completely out of the water, you really have to take a second look at the whole Indy movie scene. After seeing this, you can really see how much freedom an Indy film maker can have when they work on their own.

The funny thing is, even the other people who saw this movie and ""hated it"" admit to the fact that they laughed all the way through it. I don't think that is is possible for anybody to get bored watching either of these two. So if don't take everything that you seen in the mainstream media too seriously, and are able to laugh at a misanthropic, puppet wielding psychopath who has finally snapped, YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS. You may just be able to see it for the stand alone, cult classic that it is. Both Schizophreniac / Schizophreniac 2 are among the favorites in my collection of well over 1000 dvds.",Positive "Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.

Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious ""thing"" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that!",Negative "Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie.",Positive "Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is ‘quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in ‘very deaf‘ when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.

What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters – not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.

The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.

Finally, it is a film full of great ‘moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it – but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort.",Positive """Slaughter High"" is, perhaps, the most underrated slasher flick of the 1980s. It is one of the few films in the genre that is enthralling throughout. That being said, it also relies heavily on the standard slasher formula: A group of young men and women get killed one by one gruesomely until the final showdown.

The reason why ""Slaughter High"" stands above most movies in its genre is that it goes more over-the-top. Marty, the killer, has good reason to hold a grudge against his former classmates. They electrocuted him as he stood naked in a girl's locker room shower, jabbed at his crotch with a javelin, and, to top it off, rigged his science lab experiment so it could disfigure him.

So, the victims in this movie are about as unlikeable as you get. When they reunite years later -- at a high school reunion put on by Marty himself -- you realize they haven't matured all that much. They're a bunch of sociopaths.

It is mind-boggling why they would not wonder why they were the only ones to show up to the reunion, which, by the way, is held at a school that has since fell into disrepair. And who would think it's a good idea to drink beer and liquor found in the abandoned building in a room that happens to have their old lockers -- as well as Marty's -- on display? There are many leaps of faith the viewer needs to take to enjoy this film. The ending makes little or no sense. And the screenwriters have a strange understanding of how April Fool's Day works: The movie claims that pranks are no longer allowed after noon.

In all, the movie is one of the best examples of the slasher genre, despite all of its flaws. It is hard to understand why it hasn't yet found its way to DVD, when so many other run-of-the-mill slasher flicks are graced with special editions.",Positive "This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. ""Stroker Ace"" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.",Negative "This afternoon we took the kids to the movies and saw Neil Gaimans Stardust and all I can say is Wow.

It is rare that I am completely taken aback by anything but this is quite possibly the greatest fantasy movie I have ever seen, maybe even the best movie of any kind and it is all Neil Gaiman's fault.

Sure, I could have been sucked in by the wonderful dialog which was smart, flowed smoothly,and made the characters completely believable.

I could go on for days about the spectacular acting, Charlie Cox is perfect as Tristan, Claire Daines is Brilliant as Yvaine, and Robert Di Nero almost steals the movie as the Deeply in the Closet Pirate Captian Shakespeare.

The pure joy brought about by the humor which managed to be Laugh our Loud funny, Intelligent enough to make the first Shrek look like an 80's Sitcom, and blend in perfectly with the rest of the movie alone would have made this a great movie.

Special Effects were near perfect, true this was no LOTR or Star Wars SF Extravaganza but where they were use they were exactly what was called for, not too much to distract you from the movie itself and blended into the story perfectly.

Then there is the story? What can I say. How often do you come across a story containing all of the classic fairytale formula components that doesn't just come off as another cheap Princess Bride knockoff. It manages to be Familiar and comfortable and yet completely new and refreshing at the same time.

Any one of those things would have made this a good movie, all of them combined make it a great movie but they pale in comparison to the rich enchanting world that those elements combine to bring to life well. Once again Neil Gaiman has done it, he has driven another dagger into my heart by creating a world of fantasy that is so beautiful and enchanting that I would do almost anything to live in it and only given me a short glimpse into it. I didn't want it to end, I wanted to be sucked through a vortex to the land of Stormhold and get to meet Tristan and Yvaine in person, to travel it's fields and valleys, Stroll through it's marketplaces and meet it's residents both dangerous and friendly and stay there forever. It is a feeling that I have noticed whenever I have read anything by Gaiman, The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline all left me with a deep sense of sadness when I finished reading them because it was over, I could not see anything more into the worlds he had created which seemed to be so much more vibrant and alive than the one I am forced to live in and watching Stardust was no different.

In the end I'm sure that Neil's writing and this movie won't have the same effect on everyone but trust me when I say you will not regret the time or money spent watching this movie, it is easily one of the top 5 movies I have ever seen and I can guarantee that anyone at all with a soul will at least like it.",Positive "Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual ""warning"" on the film. When it started the following ""warning"" was displayed: ""The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic."" I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: ""I'm at the glue factory."" It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big ""twist"" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an ""army of one"" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at ""Satanic Worship"" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great ""computer hacker"" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.

So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!",Negative "An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is ""expected in 2006"" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules!",Positive "You know? Our spirit is based on that revolution, it's asleep... I can explain, I think!! Well... Until that happen on 25th April 1974, our freedom was limited, we didn't had liberty of speech, but when we got it at the revolution, it seems that Portuguese People lost his opinion, we don't use our liberty of speech! That's all a consequence of the revolution! I think that's clear!... About the movie... I think that it has a few mistakes on some character's acting, but by the way I use to watch on Portuguese movies it's quite good!! I like it very much!",Positive "A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in ""Out of this world"" & not ""small Wonder"", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the ""small wonder"" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)

",Negative """Who Done It?"" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as ""Pardon My Terror."") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.

Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice?

Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.

Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! ""Who Done It?"" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10.",Positive "Probably the best film of the year for me. This small French film centers on put upon office secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) who spends her days doing other men's jobs, uncredited, and being the source of their scorn and lunchtime conversation which is all too clear to her as, being partially deaf, she reads lips. A change is set in motion when she hires newly paroled con Paul (Vincent Cassel) as her assistant. The relationship which develops between them is the centre of the film. Mutual dependency, for vastly different reasons, bonds them. Carla becomes attracted to Paul and to the fact that he makes her feel attractive for,what seems like,the first time. Paul does nothing to dispel her feelings because he needs her help. He owes money to a local gangster and forms a plan to steal from him which will involve Carlas' skill of reading lips. I think the main thing that pushes the film way above an average suspense/drama is the amazing chemistry between the two stars. Throughout the whole film, no matter what other characters are on screen, you can feel this amazing bond between Carla and Paul. I cannot remember when I have witnessed such sexual chemistry between two actors. Emmanuell Devos gives a brilliant performance (she won the French Cesar for best actress). You never feel like you are watching a piece of acting, this really is Carla. The chameleon like Vincent Cassel is also wonderful. He makes a somewhat unappealing character both appealing and attractive. I loved this film because of these two people, and both times when I had finished watching it I wanted to go back into the cinema and become involved with them all over again.",Positive "The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.

The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.

It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s.",Positive "This review is for the extended cut of this movie.

I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.

That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.

Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old ""original"" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.

Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.

I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same.",Positive "This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt.

The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla.

Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.",Negative "After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer

RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about

The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled

The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family

The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization

RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore

Music is boring

Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times

Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams

Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes

Bhumika emerges the best of the lot

The rest are okay",Negative "I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more ""humanized"". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?",Positive "FUTZ is the only show preserved from the experimental theatre movement in New York in the 1960s (the origins of Off Off Broadway). Though it's not for everyone, it is a genuinely brilliant, darkly funny, even more often deeply disturbing tale about love, sex, personal liberty, and revenge, a serious morality tale even more relevant now in a time when Congress wants to outlaw gay marriage by trashing our Constitution. The story is not about being gay, though -- it's about love and sex that don't conform to social norms and therefore must be removed through violence and hate. On the surface, it tells the story of a man who falls in love with a pig, but like any great fable, it's not really about animals, it's about something bigger -- stifling conformity in America.

The stage version won international acclaim in its original production, it toured the U.S. and Europe, and with others of its kind, influenced almost all theatre that came after it. Luckily, we have preserved here the show pretty much as it was originally conceived, with the original cast and original director, Tom O'Horgan (who also directed HAIR and Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway).

This is not a mainstream, easy-to-take, studio film -- this is an aggressive, unsettling, glorious, deeply emotional, wildly imaginative piece of storytelling that you'll never forget. And it just might change the way you see the world...",Positive "The Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero.",Positive "Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying ""I do"". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.",Negative "The most moving and truly eye opening documentary ever created. I cried the whole way through, from start to end. Watching the show you are immediately captured by a man's struggle to live without pain, to live a life we would take for granted. The first time I heard the title, I was almost scared to see the program, it was hard for me to comprehend living in agony every day of every year of my life. I truly felt for him. The saddest part of the documentary is when Jonny picks out his coffin. Could you imagine doing that? Even more so, even though he was in excruciating and unbearable pain he still opened up his own charity. (DEBRA)Jonny is one of the only people that deserves true respect and admiration, he is the definition of a role model, what a true and undeniable hero he was!",Positive "

I have seen this movie many times. At least a Dozen. But unfortunatly not recently. However, Etched in my memory never to leave me is a scene in which Mickey Rooney, -""Killer Mears"" knows that he is to be executed and it's getting close to the moment of truth, He dances, and cries, and laughs, he vacillates from hesteria to euphoria and runs the gambit of ever emotion. Never have I seen such a brilliant performance by any actor living or dead, past or present. It was then I know for sure that Mickey Rooney, yes, ""Andy Hardy"" was and is a actor of great genius. However I kept it, my opinion to myself for years thinking, surely I must be alone in this viewpoint. About 15 years or so after I saw this film for the last time on television, I chanced to read the old Q & A section of the Los Angeles Times. The question was posed to Lawrence Olivier, and the question was: ""Mr. Olivier You are considered one of the greatest actors of all time, whom then do YOU consider to be among the greatest actors?"" His answer was, ""Peter Finch and Mickey Rooney"" I was stunned, but not surprised. I immediatly flashed back to his ""Killer Mears"" And I felt very good for having seen this great ability in him, and now having my view supported by another whos work I admired.. Later of course there was ""Bill"" and many other great moments with Mikey Rooney. This film, ""The Last Mile"" should be seen by all acting students. I Frankly cannot remember a great deal about the film after all these years but Mr. Rooney in it, will never leave me. If anyone out there remembers this film the same as I do? I would be interested in hearing from you. For this picture etched in my heart alone I gave it a 10 just on the face of his performance.",Positive "I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.

Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.",Negative "A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.",Negative "Deathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit.

Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: ""What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?""

Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies.

Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD.",Positive "/The first episode I saw of Lost made me think, i thought what is this some people who crashed and get chased by a giant monster. But it's not like that, it's far more than that,because their is no monster at all and every episode that you see of Lost , well it's getting better every time. a deserted island with an underground bunker and especially the connection between the people who crossed paths with each other before they crashed. That's the real secret.

This series rules and I can't wait to know what's really going on there I hope that they don't air the last 2 episodes in the theaters,this series deserves a 9 out of 10",Positive "Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role!",Positive "Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.

Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.

Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.",Negative "This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light.",Positive "This story was probably one of the most powerful I have ever taken in. John Singleton certainly went above and beyond when putting together this educational masterpiece. Brilliant performances by the whole cast, but Epps and Rapaport turned in the best and most convincing of either young star's career.

However, as a college student myself, many of the issues that Singleton touched on were taken to the extreme. In a sense that, while they are issues faced on many college campuses, they aren't presented as big or out in the open as this movie would make one believe. In some instances, it almost seemed ridiculous to think that something of this nature could actually occur. However, aside from the fact that it was a little over dramatic, the film was brilliant and left me stunned, unable to talk, just think. One of the things from this picture I will remember forever, was a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character, ""Knowledge is power, without knowledge, you cannot see your power."" Brilliant, just brilliant.",Positive "...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in ""Legally Blonde."" The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.",Negative "Sunny, a cocktail waitress in the D.C. area, is a bit dim, to put in mildly. She drives an old clunker and rents a tiny room from a gay male couple. However, she saves the life of a prominent Arab, by taking a bullet in the behind that was meant for the official. She charms the national press with her zany remarks and her sweet looks. Sniffing an opportunity, Presidential aides get her installed in the protocol department for the U.S. government. Even then, she messes things up at times, but she tries hard and learns a lot. She even grabs the romantic attention of a State department official. But, is there another sinister plot in the making, involving an Arab man who wishes to take another wife? A blonde one? LOL, LOL, LOL. This movie features Goldie as pretty as a picture and as dumb ""as a fox"", as they say. Sunny learns her way around the jungle of the U.S. government very, very well. She even has important things to say about honesty and the lack of it in her protocol surroundings. Perhaps, the Arab community would be less than thrilled with this work, but for those who like to laugh, rent this today.",Positive "My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo.",Negative "Wow... what would you do with $33m? Let me give you a choice; you can either a) shred it and flush it down the toilet or b)make a film based on the premise of Whoopi Goldberg as a hard nut futuristic cop partnered with a rubber dinosaur who uses terms like ""I didn't butt trumpet"" and blows raspberries on the basis that this is funny. That's right, you would choose the option that has more merit - flushing down the toilet.

This has to be seen to be believed. I cannot even find the words to describe how bad this film is. It doesn't even fit into the ""so bad - it's good"" category. I actually have it on the television as I write - and whilst watching I felt the need to come onto IMDb and register my disgust.

Considering Jurassic Park was made a couple of years before, how on earth did they think that audiences would any longer tolerate a man dressed in a rubber suit? WG should have simply walked and damn the consequences. Everyone concerned will go to hell for this criminal waste of money.

I have to stop writing - I am about to implode.",Negative "The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great.

Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down.

But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba.

The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit.

Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down.

The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.

You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.",Negative "A charming, funny film that gets a solid grade all around. I saw a screener of this film recently at work. It was so nice to see this film in contrast with all the crappy horror movies I see every day. So much so, that I figured I'd write in. Not sure if this film is going to theaters, but I hope it does. Its a nice film to see with friends, its a charmer, and has some funny jokes. The acting was terrific (especially Howard Hessman and Larry Dorf. The directing was pretty good (not a film that needed to be over-directed). What really makes this film stand out I think is the writing. It was like Neil Simon, Seinfeldish, and the banter between characters is smart and has a nice rhythm. As an aspiring screenwriter, I notice those things! (I'm a dork). Anyway, a really cute film that I recommend.",Positive "Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...

Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.

With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...

Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).",Negative "The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as ""The world's funniest human"" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.",Negative "I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a ""happily ever after"" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).

For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.",Negative "WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just ""THINGS"" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!",Negative "I've seen The Blob several times and is one of the better low budget alien invasion movies from the 1950's.

A strange meteor lands just outside a small town and an elderly man goes to investigate this. A strange jelly like substance then attaches itself to one of his arms and a young couple who saw the meteor land arrive in time and take him to the local doctor's, where the old man then gets completely absorbed by the mass. The doctor and his nurse are the next victims and the mass is getting bigger. When these incidents are reported to the police, they don't believe the young couple and accuse them of making all this up. They finally believe them when the mass, now huge turns up in the town's cinema and everybody runs into the streets screaming. It then attaches itself on a diner with the young couple and some others inside. The Blob is stopped by spraying a load of fire extinguishers at it and it freezes, which is its weakness. It is then transported by plane to the frozen wastes of the Arctic and disposed of there. But it is only frozen, not dead...

This movie has a typical setting for its period: teenagers and a small town. The Blob has a good rock and roll style theme song at the beginning and the movie is atmospheric throughout.

The sequel, Beware! The Blob followed in 1972 and a remake came in 1988 but this is the best of The Blob movies.

The cast is lead by Steve McQueen (The Great Escape)and is the movie that made him a star and Aneta Corsaut plays his girlfriend. I'm not familiar with any of the other stars.

The Blob is a must see for all sci-fi fans. Fantastic.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.",Positive "I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.",Negative "Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is the latest animated Batman straight to video/DVD movie to be released. (Minor Spoilers Ahead) The plot revolves around a new crimefighter, the Batwoman, who seems to be personally involved, for whatever reason, in stopping a major arms shipment.

Although the movie is interesting enough, it's not as good as 'Mask of the Phantasm,' 'Sub-Zero,' or 'Return of the Joker.' The main reason being is that it doesn't give off the emotional appeal the other movies did. At the end of this movie, we don't really feel sorry for anyone as we did in the others, especially, 'Sub-Zero.' There is no real tragedy that made the other animated movies special for us. Even the Batwoman is not really a 'tragic' character (as Mr. Freeze or Phantasm were). Not only that, but Batwoman's alter ego seems so incredibly 'stiff' and dull that the viewer doesn't really care what happened to her that caused her to put on the mask or what happens to her at the end and therein lies the main reason we don't get this special emotional appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I did find the movie enjoyable. It does have its moments, such as, when the audience finds out who Batwoman really is and seeing an old villain return who was last seen in the original 'Batman: The Animated Series.' The action is also very enjoyable with some very suspenseful moments.

If the Batwoman's background was more interesting, this movie would have been better than 'Return of the Joker' in my book, but as it is now, it's in 4th (out of 4).

As for the animation, it's the same as The New Batman Adventures' cartoon from the mid to late 1990's. The score is not as memorable as the previous 3 animated Batman films, but it's still good nonetheless.

I do recommend buying this DVD because, despite its flaws, it is enjoyable. But just remember, it's not as good as the other Batman animated movies.

7/10",Positive "I think part of the reason this movie was made...and is aimed at us gamers who actually play all the Nancy Drew PC games. There's been a lot of movies lately based on video games, and I think this in one of them.

So this movie does not follow any book. But it does follow parts of the games. I buy and play every Nancy Drew games as soon as it comes out. And the games are from HerInteractive and are for ""girls who aren't afraid of a mouse!"" And some of these games actually won Parents' Choice Gold Awards. They are not only fun but you can actually learn a thing or two while playing.

I took two of my step children with me to go see it and they loved it! The 10 yr. old had started playing her first Nancy Drew game a day before I took her to see the movie, and she was having so much fun playing the game I thought she would enjoy the movie as well. And I was right...she not only loved this movie but couldn't wait to get home to finish her first game and start another one.

My other step daughter is only 7 and she also loved the movie but she is still a little to young too play the games yet, but she enjoys watching her sister play at times just to see what's going on.

The games are based for children 10 yrs and older. All the games usually get pretty descent reviews and are classified as adventure games. For more information on the games just check out HerInterative Nancy Drew games. So personally I thought the movie was pretty good and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD.",Positive "This movie is Jackie's best. I still cant get enough of watching some of his best stunts ever. I also like the bad guys in this movie (the old man looks like a Chinese version of John Howard). Unlike some of Jackie's other work, this movie has also got a great story line and i recommend it to all of Jackie's fans.",Positive "A very enjoyable film, providing you know how to watch old musicals / mysteries. It may not come close to Agatha Christie or even Thin Man mysteries as a film noir, but it's much more interesting than your typical ""boy meets girl"" or ""let's put on a show"" backstage musical. As a musical, it's no Busby Berkley or Freed unit, but it can boost the classic ""Coctails for two"" and the weird ""Sweet Marijuana"". The film runs in real time during a stage show, opening night of the ""Vanities"", where a murder - and soon another - is discovered backstage. Is the murderer found out before the curtain falls? Sure, but the search is fun, even though somewhat predictable and marred by outbursts of comic relief (luckily in the shape of the shapely goddess of the chorus girls, Toby Wing). The stupid cop is just a bit too stupid, the leading hero is just a bit too likable, the leading lady a bit too gracious, the bitchy prima donna bit too bitchy, and the enamoured waif a bit too self-sacrificing, but as stereotypes go, they are pretty stylish. There's a bevy of really gorgeous chorus girls, who are chosen even better than the girls for a Busby Berkley musical of the same period, who sometimes tend to be a bit on the plump side. Yes, this film could have been much better than it is, and the Duke Ellington number is an embarrassment, but if you enjoy diving into old movies, this will prove to be a tremendously tantalizing trip.",Positive "Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the ""unknown man"" who heads the syndicate, and murders him.

The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another ""unknown man"" -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years.",Positive "Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special ""business"", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.

I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.

Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it.",Positive "Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.",Negative "This is one of the most daring and important of the so-called ""Pre-Code"" films made in Hollywood during the 1930s. Unlike some Pre-Code films that occasionally dabbled in subjects that would have never been allowed after 1934-5, this film fully immersed itself in a very sordid yet entertaining plot from start to finish. The conventional morality of the late 30s and 40s was definitely NOT evident in this film, as the film is essentially about a conniving woman who sleeps her way to the top--and with no apologies along the way. This ""broad"" both enjoyed sex and used it on every man who could help her get rich--something you just never would have seen in films made just two or three years later.

The film begins with Barbara Stanwyck working in her father's speakeasy. In addition to being her boss, he is also her pimp and encourages her to sleep with a local government official so that he'll allow the illegal bar to operate with impunity. While not especially clear here, it appears as if Daddy has been ""renting"" his daughter's body out for a long time.

However, after nearly being raped and attacking this man by breaking a bottle of beer over his skull, Barbara has had enough and heads to the big city. It doesn't hurt that the still blew up and killed her father, but her feeling that she was whoring herself out and had nothing to show for it appeared to be the impetus to move.

Despite the Depression, Barbara uses sex to get a job at a huge mega-bank. She starts out at a pretty menial job as a file clerk, but in the space of what seems like just a few weeks, she sleeps her way from one job to another to yet another--until she is sleeping with the head of the bank and his future son-in-law!!! This all ends in tragedy, but Babs doesn't seem too shook up over the deaths of these two men. In fact, some time later, she is able to insinuate herself into the life of the NEW CEO and once again she's on top (perhaps in more way than one).

Now so far, this is a wonderful movie because it was so gritty and unrepentant. Barbara played a 100% sociopath--a woman with no morality and no conscience--just a desire to squeeze as much out of life as she could no matter who she hurt in the process. However, the brave writers and producer ""chickened out"" and thought it important to tack on a redemptive ending. Considering that this woman was so evil and conniving, her change of heart at the end was a major disappointment and strongly detracted from the film. In many ways, this reminded me of the ending of JEZEBEL--as once again, a wicked person somehow ""sees the light"" and changes at the not-too-convincing conclusion.

My advice is to try watching RED-HEADED WOMAN and DOWNSTAIRS. RED-HEADED WOMAN is much like BABY FACE but features no magical transformation at the end--the leading lady really is a skunk down deep! In DOWNSTAIRS, a film very much like RED-HEADED WOMAN, the roles are reversed and a man (John Gilbert) plays a similar conniving character. Both are classics and a bit better than this film.

This film is an amazing curio of a brief period of often ultra-sleazy Hollywood films and in this light it's well worth seeing for Cinephiles. Also, fans of The Duke take note--John Wayne plays a very small part in the film and it's very unusual to see a very young Wayne playing such a conventional role.",Positive "F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!

Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!

I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is.",Negative I cant believe blockbuster carries this movie. It was SO BAD. I was totally fooled by the box art. DON'T BE FOOLED!! Its not worth your time I promise you. I don't know if the positive reviews for this flick were a joke or what. I am so disappointed. :(

The description on the back of the box doesn't even match! The girl that has the voodoo done on her is a stripper. The synopsis on the back says she is only 17. Did the people writing the description for the film even bother to watch it!? Those positive reviews had to be a joke they just had to be. If anyone actually liked this flick then I've lost all faith in humanity.

And don't even get me started on the story compared to the title. Or the fact that the entire movie was done all in 2 locations. Or that the cops didn't even have close to real uniforms. Why would i even say that?? Who cares about the cops uniforms!? Compared to the rest of the movie the uniforms were spot on.

This movie is an insult to the zombie genre and all of its fans.,Negative "CONTAINS SPOILERS!

I saw an advert for this on a video.Then my sister discovered that we had the book so I read it.I rented the video on the same day I finished the book.I thought it was very memorable as was the book. The cast was brilliant.Tara Fitzgerald was excellent as Helen and Rupert Graves was hateful as Arthur.The costumes,music and settings are stunningly beautiful.

WARNING!DON`T READ ANY MORE IF YOU HAVEN`T WATCHED THIS

On the downside there are some sex scenes that have been added in and some violence.This is why the video is rated 15. There are some other things that have been thrown in.After the first part,I felt that the accuracy went downhill. While the book is better than this,I am glad I have seen it and would reccomend it to people who have read the book,are fans of Bronte or like costume dramas(I am all 3!)as long as you fastforward through the sex scenes. The book is rather underated.Anne Brontes books don`t seem to be that widely read or well known as Jane Erye or Wuthering Heights which have made it into television and film several times. Another thing.When I read the book ,I was surprised at how much religion ther was in it,but here they had axed that all out!

7\10",Positive "It would help to know why it took so long for a book as movie-ready' as ""The House Next Door"" to be adapted for film or television. The book was copyrighted in 1978. One reason could be problems designing 'the house'. The house in this Lifetime film is really so ugly that I can't imagine anyone buying it. In fact it's so ugly that someone would probably have come and destroyed it as soon as it was built.

I'm not crazy about horror genre books, but this one was hard to put down when I came across it around ten years ago. The main characters are not the kind of people to look for anything occult in life, and this is one of the book's strengths. They are not people who would conclude that the architect was some type of demon..(or the devil personified) without witnessing and analyzing the events described so well in the book. However, it is a downbeat book for the most part, and I don't think that appeals to the people who run Lifetime. Maybe someone will come up with another version of the book in years to come. A better house..better music..a better screenplay and darker lighting...would certainly help.",Negative "

This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And ""Semana Santa"" is in every way an even poorer movie.

Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in ""Suspiria"" and ""inferno"" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...",Negative "Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.

The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this,

On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.

But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.

Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.",Negative "this is a film about life, the triumph over adversity and the wonders of the human spirit. I defy anyone not to shed a tear by the end of the movie. This is more than just a tear-jerker, its an engaging, thought-provoking drama with excellent performances from all the cast but especially derek Luke and denzel washington. 7 years on, I'm amazed that Luke is still a virtual unknown and washington only directed one other film. Nevertheless, apart from a slow build-up, the story of this foster child's trials and tribulations and how it still affects him in adulthood is the sort of movie that stays with you long after you have seen it. Like many fox searchlight pictures, this was more of a sleeper hit and didn't get the mass critical acclaim it deserves. The scene where Antwone finally meets his mother summed up the movie for me, there were so many ways that could have been done and it could have been all schmaltzy or it could have been unrealistic but Washington struck exactly the right tone, his mother never said a word and could only shed a tear, while antowne asked simply why. Her overwhelming guilt prevented her from saying anything, what could she say to defend herself? One of the most moving cinematic scenes I have seen.",Positive "What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word ""butthorn"" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from ""Lethal Weapon"" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in ""Red Dawn"" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in ""Every Which Way You Can.""",Negative "Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable.",Positive "Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say ""I love you"" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.

One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of ""Bent"". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.

Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and ""Friends"". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting ""blowed up"" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in ""Friends"".

This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.",Positive "This is not a movie for fans of the usual eerie Lynch stuff. Rather, it's for those who either appreciate a good story, or have grown tired of the run-of-the-mill stuff with overt sentimentalism and Oprah-ish ""This is such a wonderful movie! You must see it!""-semantics (tho' she IS right, for once!).

The story unfolds flawlessly, and we are taken along a journey that, I believe, most of us will come to recognize at some time. A compassionate, existentialist journey where we make amends för our past when approaching ourt inevitable demise.

Acting is without faults, cinematography likewise (occasionally quite brilliant!), and the dialogue leaves out just enough for the viewer to grasp the details od the story.

A warm movie. Not excessively sentimental.",Positive "Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.

Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.

Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! ""Jane"" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.

There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.

Still, this movie offers about everything - except ""Boy"" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of ""lungs,"" that was no problem.",Positive "From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.

Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.

The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.

I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can!",Negative "Ah, the sex-and-gore movie. It's too bad they don't make these anymore (unless you live in Japan). But if they all turned out like this, that is not a bad thing.

The movie basically consists of the two lovely vampires picking up ""johns"" along a country road, taking them home to their castle, having crazy sex with them, and then eating them (except the first victim, who they keep around for no particular reason). Things are complicated when a woman camping with her husband becomes too curious about these mysterious women she keeps seeing. It gets real ugly from here. By the end, the two vamps are in such a bloodlust that they're eating everything in sight, and manage to let their captive victim escape. Oops, so much for that secret existence.

The fact that the two vampyres don't mind taking their clothes off and fooling around with each other is the only thing this movie has going for it. Otherwise, it's a bloody, confusing mess (why is their tomb so far away from their castle?), watchable only for the scant few minutes of vampyre playtime. The only thing I got out of this movie was these two valuable bits of advice: shooting lesbians will not kill them; it will only turn them into vampires, and, don't pick up hookers along a country road; they are probably vampires. Other than that, it really wasn't worth my time.",Negative "Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does ""acting"") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.

Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick.",Negative "Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, ""The Song of Ruth"" and ""Esther and the King."" It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife.",Positive "As part of our late 1950s vocabulary, we well knew the Ponderosa, Little Joe, Hoss, Ben Cartwright,etc. on that great show ""Bonanza.""

It came Saturday night and everyone was glued to the television set. This was a real show depicting family values. There may have been a weekly crisis, but it was the strong family atmosphere that pulled everyone together.

Lorne Greene was dominant as the patriarch of the family. His words depicted wisdom. We often were left to wonder that Ben Cartwright, a widower, must have been the best of husbands to that poor wife of his who had died. He reared wonderful sons.

Naturally, we all wondered why Pernell Roberts left the show. The show was a gold mine and Roberts surrendered loads of money when he departed. His career never took off as he was associated as a Cartwright son. He should have tried to get back into the series. He certainly lost a bonanza by dropping out.",Positive "OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.

All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.

I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: ""When are they going to shut up""? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.

This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.

A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.",Negative "First, this film is not a ""thriller."" Neither is it ""gripping, taut."" It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.

The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and ""cunning vixen"" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.

I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.",Negative "A woman, Mujar (Marta Belengur) enters a restaurant one morning at &:35 unaware that a terrorist has kidnapped the people in said restaurant & is making them act out a musical number in this strange yet fascinating short film, which I only saw by finding it on the DVD of the director/writer's equally fascinating ""Timecrimes"". It had a fairly catchy song & it somehow brought a smile to my face despite the somber overall plot to the short. I'm glad that I stumbled across it (wasn't aware it would be an extra when I rented the DVD) and wouldn't hesitate at all to recommend it to all of my friends.

My Grade: A-",Positive "Scary Movie 2 was a grave disappointment. Simply referencing movies, like Mission Impossible 2 does not lead to comedy. The movie opens well enough with a funny white people rapping scene and an excellent use of James Woods ands Andy Richter. The movie plummets from there unfortunately. The acting is awful. Tori Spelling looks and acts completely out of place. The movie looks hacked together and is surprisingly slow paced. Some of the longer gags in this snail paced movie, involving joints and a previously mentioned Tom Cruise movie, werent funny to anyone in my theater. The movie, thankfully, comes screeching to a halt at 83 minutes in a shockingly unfunny ending. (I say shocking because the ending does not even attempt to end with humor) I dont know what else to say except that is a sloppy rushed sequel done to make Miramax some more cash on the backs of dumb teenagers. Overall, a very poorly done movie.",Negative "First of all, this movie is 34 minutes long, which means you could watch it three times in a row and still have spent less time than you would have watching most other movies. Second of all--you need to do this. This sensational short film explores the potential of animation through a world of playful or horrifying but always powerful images. Cats riding in and drinking out of a water elephant, a circus featuring a bird that has consumed the sky, and pigs eating their own fried flesh--that's only the beginning. The scenes and images, extraordinary on their own, flow together without obvious causal links in a way that demands re-watching. Furthermore, the DVD includes an amazing director's commentary, which, given the extremely spare dialog, only enhances the viewing. The commentary gives a few interpretations of scenes, but also provides priceless quotes on the crafting of Cat Soup, along the lines of: ""well, the artists were asking what we should do in this scene, but I didn't know myself, so its hard to say why it turned out as it did"" (that's a bad paraphrase by the way). Also, the sound throughout the film is very high quality, very precise, and very moody. In all, the absolute minimum viewing experience should go as follows:

First viewing: Watch the DVD without the commentary. Second viewing: Watch the DVD WITH the commentary. Third viewing: Rewatch without the commentary.

Once you've watched it three times, however, you're not going to stop there...",Positive "Fay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.

Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.

Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004).",Positive "...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.

I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...

1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT

There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!

Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?

When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask ""What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!""?

What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years?

Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?

and finally, Why? Just, Why?

BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...

...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....

either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.",Negative "In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.

Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.

Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy.",Positive "One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give ""CC"" a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.

And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's ""Robot Chicken."" I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom ""The Class."" WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of ""Creatures""....let's just say I'd take the ""Class."" Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill.",Negative "In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.",Positive "very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.

1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10.",Negative "I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.",Negative "While rehearing Carmen of Bizet, the middle-aged choreographer Antonio (Antonio Gades) brings the sexy Carmen (Laura del Sol) to perform the lead role. Antonio falls in love for Carmen, who is an independent and seductive woman incapable to accept a possessive love. When Carmen has an affair with another dancer, Antonio is consumed by his jealousy like D. José in the original opera, entwining fiction with reality.

""Carmen"" is another great movie of Carlos Saura's trilogy dedicated to the Flamenco dance. The dramatic love story is developed with the lives of the artists entwined with the characters they are rehearsing, and many times is not absolutely clear whether what is happening is reality (with the dancers) or fiction (of the play). Paco de Lucia is another attraction of this original version of the famous Bizet's opera, which is based on the novel of Prosper Mérimée. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Carmen""",Positive "Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.",Negative "Othello, the classic Shakespearen story of love, betrayal, lies, and tragedy. I remember studying this story in high school, actually I found Othello to be probably my favorite Shakespeare story due to the fact of how fascinating it was, the fact that Shakespeare captured the feeling of friendship, love, and racism perfectly. I mean, when you really do study this story, you could go into so many philosophies on why Othello went insane with jealousy in the blink of an eye. But later on for my report I also watched this version of Othello and I have to say that it was absolutely brilliant. Lawerance and Kenneth just capture the story so well and understood it's darkness.

Othello is the big time soldier in his city, he is loved by everyone, including the king. But when the king finds out that Othello snuck off with his daughter, Desdemona, the king is infuriated, but excepts it. Othello is welcome in the city and makes his best friend, Cassio, his side man instead of Iago, who has stood by Othello. Due to his insane jealousy, he's out for revenge. Still pretending to be Othello's best friend, he just mearly hints at Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him with Cassio, never says that they are, just makes Othello think that it's happening. Othello is driven insane and doesn't have pleasant plans for Desdemona or Cassio and Iago is more than happy to help him out.

Othello is an incredible story, I highly recommend that you read it. It's an incredible story that keeps you thinking after you've read it. Othello the movie is also great and once again I recommend it, it captured the story perfectly and has a big tearjerker type of feel, or you could just be in utter shock of what happens between Othello and Desdemona, how quickly he believes that his true love would betray him. This is a terrific movie, great acting, good sets, and good direction, this is what Shakespeare meant when he wrote the story.

10/10",Positive "I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body!",Positive "As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.

Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: ""Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!"". As she gets more and more curious about this ""man"", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.

The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: ""Lots of planets have a North!"".

The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.

First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor.",Positive "I have never watched a movie in so little time. The only salvation was the fast forward function on the DVD unit. It was like watching a poorly produced CBC film. There was obviously no money for lighting, filming, sets, location, scriptwriters, editors, actors... Oh, there was absolutely no story either! I need to write ten lines of comment... Bad, awful, horrible, wretched, anguishing, tortuous, bilious, nauseous, sickening, fromage, disgusting, flimsy, icky, yucky, pukey, stinky, smelly, vile, putrid, all-thumbs-down, and I don't know if I can keep on going to complete all ten lines of just how bad this piece of crap-o-matic production was!",Negative "I didn't expect much when I saw this at the Palm Springs Film Fest this weekend. It was an alternate choice when two other films were sold out. Still, I held out hope. It sounded a bit much like ""Bride and Prejudice"" (L.A. guy falls for an Indian beauty, parental conflict, blah blah blah). B&P was not perfect but it was an enjoyable film with some good laughs and likable characters.

""My Bollywood Bride"" had none of that. The acting seemed stilted and way to by-the-numbers. Characters were so cliché the story seemed like it could have been written by high school freshman drama student. Technically, the sound really bothered me. It seemed as if there was a lot of over-dubbing of dialogue. I mean a lot. I know sometimes it's necessary but it sounded like half the film was shot in a closet and it became very distracting.

Two stars is being somewhat generous.",Negative "Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.

Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet.

Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.

Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, ""When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help."" This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.

The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways…1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.

Favorite Quote – When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, ""Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?"" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, ""Now you're talking science fiction."" He also continues to mention the ""Science Fiction"" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.

Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.

Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.

Rating: 7/10

Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook",Positive "This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)

This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.

Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.

Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.

Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me.",Positive "Back to the roots with ""like it is in heaven"" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone.

From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.

He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.

Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears!",Positive "2005 gave us the very decent ""gore porn"" flick Hostel, and 2006 gave us Live Feed; a not so decent rip-off of Hostel. Live Feed follows pretty much the same formula as Eli Roth's earlier film, except this time the dumb kids are in Asia rather than central Europe. The plot focuses on these dumb kids, and one of them has annoyed one of the locals so they find themselves in trouble. The locals decide to lock them all in a theatre, and kill them. Despite the fact that I'd heard some less than favourable things about this film before seeing it, I still hoped that it might be at least half decent because director Ryan Nicholson previously made the very decent 45 minute rape and revenge film 'Torched', but this film falls down simply because most of it is either ridiculous or boring. The film is obviously trying to hark back to the good old days of Grindhouse cinema (which Hostel did, successfully), but it really doesn't come off. Surprisingly, considering Nicholson's previous work in special effects - not even the gore is impressive...although it is a lot better than the acting! There's not much else I can say about this film...it's bad and not in a good way. Avoid it!",Negative "This is another example of a sucky sequel to a great movie. I highly recommend The Prophecy, but this movie was a dud from the start. The acting was decent all the way around, but the story line was weak and added nothing to the origional. A 4 out of 10 at best.",Negative "I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.",Negative "Ignoring (if possible) the tediously gratuitous marijuana smoking (which seems to be mandatory in Australian government-funded films) the cast of this movie gives a reasonably credible performance. That's a far as it goes. The rest is simply awful. The plot's overburdened with ""wow"" symbolisms which are meant to look good on film but go nowhere. A gross example is the giant peach float, obviously left over from a town parade and donated by the local canning factory. It was just too tempting to waste what was hopefully a free, but nevertheless irrelevant, prop! The peach is given a cursory, unexplained wash-down at one stage but that's where it ends.

Similarly, the contrived ""black spot"" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.

The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but ""rats"" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.",Negative "Some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good - 23rd Century films released dozens of obscure Italian and American movie that were great, but although Hardgore released some Fulci films amongst others, the bulk of their output is crap like The Zombie Chronicles.

The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it's nowhere near as annoying as the Stink of Flesh. Other than that, its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a Lego house built by a whelk.

It's been noted elsewhere, but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence, so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks, you've seen it all already.

Bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18,000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker, who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit), and kudos to Hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like I was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip.

Awful, awful stuff. We've all made stuff like this when we've gotten a hold of a camera, but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. Avoid.",Negative "T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.",Negative "Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has ""no father"" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.",Negative "This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a ""service comedy."" Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.",Negative "OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).

As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.

If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's ""Passion of the Christ"" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.

All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.",Negative "After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.

Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.

Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.

Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding.",Negative "May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.

I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.

I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.",Negative "I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10",Positive "I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour.",Positive ".... And after seeing this pile of crap you won't be surprised that it wasn't published

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

This is a terrible movie by any standards but when I point out that it's one of the worst movies that has the name Stephen King in the credits you can start to imagine how bad it is . The movie starts of with two characters staring open mouthed at a scene of horror :

"" My god . What happened here ? ""

"" I don't know but they sure hate cats "" *

The camera pans to the outside of a house where hundreds of cats are strung up dead and mutilated . Boy this guy is right , someone does hate cats and with a deduction like that he should be a policeman . Oh wait a minute , he is a policeman and when a movie starts with a cop making an oh so obvious observation you just know you're going to be watching a bad movie

The reason SLEEPWALKERS is bad is that it's very illogical and confused . We eventually find out the monsters of the title need the blood of virgins to survive . Would they not be better looking for a virgin in the mid west bible belt rather than an American coastal town ? Having said that at least we know of the monsters motives - That's the only thing we learn . We never learn how they're able to change shape or are able to make cars become invisible and this jars with the ending that seems to have been stolen from THE TERMINATOR . Monster mother walks around killing several cops with her bare hands or blowing them up via a police issue hand gun ( ! ) but if her monster breed is immune from police fire power then why do the creatures need the ability to change shape or become invisible ? The demise of the creatures is equally ill thought out as there killed by a mass attack of household cats . If they can be killed by cats then why did the monsters not kill all the cats that were lying around the garden ? There was a whole horde of moggies sitting around but the monsters never thought about killing them . I guess that's so the production team can come up with an ending . It was that they started the movie my complaint lies

We're treated to several scenes where famous horror movie directors like John Landis , Clive Barker and even Stephen King make cameos . I think the reason for this is because whenever a struggling unknown actor read the script they instantly decided that no matter what , they weren't going to appear in a movie this bad so Stephen King had to phone up his horror buddies in order to fill out the cast . That's how bad SLEEPWALKERS is

* Unbelievable as it seems that wasn't the worst line in the movie . The worst line is - "" That cat saved my life """,Negative "This movie starts out brisk, has some slow moments in the middle, but generally moves along well, has a few very good moments, then peters out at the end of Act 3. I was able to get to see this in LA premieres 2 times (with 2 different endings). Jason Lee is a star, but he is not tomorrows leading man. He is humorous and holds his own, but he is better served as a supporting actor. Julia Stiles does 'ok' in a comedy role, new for her, but she doesn't 'steal' this movie, the way a star of her caliber should. For an actress who has so much potential(10 Things, Save the Last Dance, O), it is hard to watch her continue to do roles that are so 'average', and then not have her take the role and run away with the movie (like Daniel Day-Lewis did in 'Gangs'). Selma Blair is a good young actress as well, and does an 'ok' job. I didn't expect an academy award performance from her, and she didn't deliver one, but, her performance was adequate. Chris Koch delivers another film that is 'above average'. Perhaps the problem lies in the script more than anything else. I 'did' like this movie! But, it is not a movie where you walk away and say...'that was great!'...This 'story' has been done so many times before and there was just not much new here. The rehearsal dinner scene was probably the best in the movie, and Larry Miller gives an incredible performance in a supporting role (he could be the best surprise of the film). If you want to go see a movie that will make you laugh a few times, and have an enjoyable evening, I can still recommend this film, but unless they have changed the ending...again...leave during the church scene, or you will surely be disappointed.",Positive "This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, ""Tom"", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!",Negative "When I was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had Children's Matinees every Saturday and Sunday afternoon (anybody remember those?). They showed this thing one year around Christmas time. Me and some friends went to see it. I expected a cool Santa Claus movie. What I got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie.

Something about Santa Claus and Merlin the Magician (don't ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting Satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns!). The images had me cringing in my seat. I always found Santa spooky to begin with so that didn't help. The guy in the Satan suit didn't help. But what REALLY horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled Santa's sled. When he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements--I remember having nightmares about those things! All these years later I still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what I saw. My friends were sort of frightened by it too. I just saw an ad for it on TV and ALL those nightmares came roaring back. This is a creepy, disturbing little Christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. Avoid this one--unless you really want to punish your kids. This gets a 1.",Negative I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.

The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.

The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.

It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!),Positive "Paris Je T ' aime is a movie that explores the different kinds and aspects of love and all the emotions that it provokes. This movie reunites some of the best directors from around the world such as Gus Van Sant, Joel and Ethan Coen , Walter Salles a...(read more)nd Alfonso Cuaron to tell short stories about love located in Paris, each one with their particular way of directing. In this film we also have one of the best cast ever seen in a movie including such great actors like Willem Dafoe, Steve Buscemi, Natalie Portman, Elijah Wood, Gerard Depardieu and many more each one with great performances. In conclusion, this movie is a compilation of stories of happiness, separation, unexpected encounters and love.",Positive "I watched this movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains.",Negative "WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS

A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it – I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels – Dream Warriors in particular – weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.

An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.

Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out ""we know this is garbage – but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?"" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few ""haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr – har – har – hars"" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.

Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written ""you're f**ked"". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds ""well the map says we're f**ked"". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?

Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin – a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. ""Nice hearing from you, Carlos"", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.

The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with ""shut the f**k up, man"" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.

",Negative "REIGN OVER ME (2007) *** Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, Mike Binder, Jonathan Banks, Rae Allen, Paula Newsome. At times affecting and at times middling dramedy about a thoroughly depressed man who lost his family on 9/11 (Sandler in his best role since ""Punch-Drunk Love"") who winds up re-united with his old college roommate and friend (Cheadle continuing to do impressive work with every role to date), a well-to-do dentist who seems to have it all – family, wealth, happiness – but really sees an ally in freedom with his troubled friend's own personal life offerings. Written and directed by Binder (who co-stars as Sandler's former-best friend and acting accountant) with equal parts humor and genuine heartache the film works best when the two stars share the screen until the last act falls into an almost movie-of-the-week treacle with to tidy a solution to the matters at hand.",Positive "A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and ""cleanse"" the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.

Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment.",Positive "I have not read the other comments on the film, but judging from the average rating I can see that they are unlikely to be very complementary.

I watched it for the second time with my children. They absolutely loved it. True, it did not have the adults rolling around the floor, but the sound of the children's enjoyment made it seem so.

It is a true Mel Brooks farce, with plenty of moral content - how sad it is to be loved for our money, not for whom we are, and how fickle are our friends and associates. There are many other films on a similar subject matter, no doubt, many of which will have a greater comic or emotional impact on adults. It's hard for me to imagine such an impact on the junior members of the family, however.

Hence, for the children, a 9/10 from me.",Positive "And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.

Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.

Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.

Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.

The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.

Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.

Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form.",Positive "No plot, crappy acting, and pointless gore....

This is supposed to be a horror movie? There's no fear, or suspense, just BOOM BANG GORE, then done. Some kinda Marines are in the desert for some weird, crappy reason and they get hunted down by those mutated beasts from the first movie, which was good, and should have been left it at that.

This is just another excuse for money, and use of pointless violence, just like the ""Saw"" sequels. They know no matter how pointless the plot is, and the more gore they can add, people will see it. I miss good suspenseful horror movies. Come on Hollywood, you can do much, much better.",Negative "In the '70s, Charlton Heston starred in sci-fi flicks of varying quality. ""Soylent Green"" is one of the better ones. He plays Robert Thorn, a detective in 2022 New York. In this future, most food is so expensive that everyone needs a product called Soylent Green. But when Thorn finds out the unsavory truth about this product, he finds himself on the run.

I guess that it's only natural that this movie should seem dated to us nowadays. But even so, it still brings up interesting questions about what will become of our agriculture. Also starring Leigh Taylor-Young, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters, Joseph Cotten and Edward G. Robinson (in his final role).",Positive "I first saw this movie on television some years ago and frankly loved it. Charles Dance makes one of the most terrifying villains anyone can imagine. His sophistication is such a perfect contrast to the crudely good hero. I have never been much of an Eddie Murphy fan but find his irritating portrayal here a winner: a bit of ""Axel Foley Through the Looking Glass"". Charlotte Lewis is, to utilize a hackneyed phrase but the only one applicable, luminously gorgeous. Some scenes are wonderfully created: the dream sequence, the bird, the silly fight scenes, and the climactic confrontation. Through it all Murphy is the modern man suddenly dropped into an oriental myth, a stunned and quieter version of Kurt Russell in his oriental fantasy romp. Like that movie we have James Hong, the incomparable actor whose scenes, however short, raise the quality even of Derek. Since 1955 Hong has defined the fine supporting actor, the ""class act"" of his profession. ""The Golden Child"" is silly; it is not perfect; but it has so many redeeming features that it is an enjoyable and amusing fantasy, well worth watching. After four years I have seen ""The Golden Child"" again; I enjoyed it even more! It truly is great fun.",Positive "The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average.

Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast.",Negative "With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, ""How did this movie ever get made?"" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.",Negative "An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.",Negative "I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of ""Star Trek Voyager"", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of ""Deep Space Nine"" in 1999. prayers, answered. ""Enterprise"" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. ""Star Trek"" is back - ""Voyager,"" nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!

>",Positive "As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see ""The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)"" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution.

The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of ""The Scarlet Pimpernel.""

As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: ""Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;"" you could also pick a tune from ""Les Miz.""

I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of ""The Scarlet Pimpernel."" Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody.

Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was ""Why are revolutionaries so grim?"" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.

(originally written 8/11/2002)",Negative "Yes, a true classic! This is what British drama is all about,realism and the minimal use of special effects (and over inflated budgets). I last saw this drama when it was last screened on British terrestial TV in 1994. It truly should be viewed by everyone who likes a scary plot,no big names but non-the-less great acting.Sadly the copywrite is now owned by someone unknown and as such this great drama is unlikely to be aired anytime soon.I myself recently acquired The Woman In Black on VHS,so now once again I shall be able to enjoy this truly great British drama. You should try and enjoy it too!

Mark R. Horobin",Positive "Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.

I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.

The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.

All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange.

I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!!",Positive "If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.

The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.

Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.

Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance.",Positive "Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.

I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.

At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.

But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?

And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.

Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).

Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.",Negative "A broke would be screenwriter and his would be agent (Tom Wood and Arye Gross) are forced to live in a self storage facility run by an eccentric and intimidating manager (Ron Perlman) whom they come to believe is the serial murderer that is terrorizing the city, the ""Costume Killer"" (so named because, after injecting his victims with Windex, he dresses them in silly costumes). They convince him his life story would make a great film and gather together a group of misfit wannabe film makers (John Considine, Joe Pantoliano, Kristy Swanson) and discover that the art of movie making can be murder.

There is more to this movie but it was unfortunately left on the editing room floor and it shows (rumor is the studio wanted a ""lighter"" dark comedy). Our loss (and the actors, who all do fine jobs and deserve better) as this has the makings of an exceptional black comedy but only rises to mediocre cute.

If you're a Ron Perlman fan this is absolutely worth getting just for his performance. His comedic timing is excellent and he has the chance to do some really great impressions (he wasn't kidding when he said on the Hellboy movie commentary that he needed an intervention when he gets into Jerry Lewis mode). He's just simply fun to watch in this one.

David Dukes also shines in a two-scener (but pivotal) role.",Negative "I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got ""Cult Status"" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great.",Positive "Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!

There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!

Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand ""enjoyably bad films"" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!

4/10",Negative "Yeah, I ""get"" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his ""Decameron"" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed ""realism"" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.

And Pasolini's ""Decameron"" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say ""Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!"" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.

The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's ""Decameron"" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy (""Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?"") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's ""Satyricon"". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas ""Decameron"" fails by those same elements.",Negative "I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.

I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).

Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....

Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).",Positive "This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is ""Game over, man! Game over!"" (from the movie ""Aliens"").

The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their ""work."" It really makes the movie believable and memorable.

Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I""m sure to love!",Positive "Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in ""The Unknown Man,"" a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.

""The Unknown Man"" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.

Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinée idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.

Very good movie with good performances.",Positive "I know it's crude, and I know that it isn't at all PC, but it's so funny. If you can put it into perspective that it's from the early 80's and it carries all the stereotypes of the time--and the movie still makes you almost pass out with laughter--than it is truly a good comedy. Going with the tradition of what comedies have been for thousands of years, the subject matter of this film is exagerated. If you can suspend your political correctness for an hour and a half, just to have an all-out laugh, than please watch this.

P.S. Would someone please put this out on DVD, it's so hard to find on VHS anymore.",Positive "If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.

This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital ""film"". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.

I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a ""creative"" film - I like David Lynch.

This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a ""lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks"" con job.

I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.",Negative "After viewing ""Whipped"" at a distributor's screening at the AFM the other night, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed. The audience was laughing all the way through. Unfortunately, every territory was already sold, so I did not have the opportunity to purchase the film, but I truly believe that it will be a big hit both domestically and over seas. I agree with the comment that ""Whipped"" should not be pitched as a male ""Sex and the City,"" mainly because unlike ""Sex and the City,"" ""Whipped"" is a satire about dating that never takes itself too seriously. ""Whipped"" pokes fun at relationships in a way that most sex comedies wouldn't dare. Also, the film that I screened at the AFM had more of a plot and story than ""Swingers,"" ""Clerks,"" and ""Sex and the City"" combined. ""Whipped"" never slowed down for a beat and provided the audience with non-stop comedy. The performances of Amanda Peet and the rest of the cast were all rock solid, which only made the film more impressive considering the budget.",Positive "Doghi is a wonderful movie and Renuka Daftardar is excellent. So is Uttara Baokar who is usually excellent in most of her roles. Along with Kairee, its an example of Marathi cinema at its best. There are certain parts in both movies that tend to the didactic - it would have probably enhanced the movie to not have the few scenes where the social message is hammered in. These scenes probably emerge from the film-maker's political concerns but the movie is realistic and moving enough to not need it. But apart from such minor quibbles, its a movie that deserves to be seen more and one I strongly recommend. Sumitra Bhave's concern and humanism shines through.",Positive "Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.

The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.

One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.

This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.

Long live the King!",Positive "This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least.",Negative "Arms and the Man' is one of Shaw's funniest plays if handled correctly, and this production does a good enough job. Helena Bonham-Carter, pre-film stardom, is Raina, the daughter of a military family, who has a peacock of a fiancé (Patrick Ryecart), and who shelters a soldier from the enemy (Pip Torrens) during a raid on the town.

Full of colour and energy, this production rips along at a good pace, and if Bonham-Carter and Patsy Kensit as the maid are outshone a bit by the rest of the cast, they still hold their ground. Kika Markham and Dinsdale Landen as the parents are delightful, and the whole play is generally a happy one.

Highly recommended.",Positive "I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.",Negative "Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!

Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.

The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story ""Mr. Big"", because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.

During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!

The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!

I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: ""But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!"" Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see..",Positive "Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.",Negative "This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.",Negative "Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words ""not worth your $7"". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.

As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.

Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.

That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.

Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.

I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).",Negative "Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.

Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.

The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.

Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.

BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com",Positive "I really loved it although while reading the reviews it was quite disturbing to me..But as an anime art fan i can totally understand this perfect art work even though some of it was against my cultures and believes..But hey,it's the world of art..!! the beginning of the film is very strong,strange and confusing.it's hard to understand the contents which make me respect the one who made it.only someone who is extremely opened can do such daring film..it's absolutely not for kids..even though the characters are cute and adorable but they go through some disturbing adventures that cannot be erased(sorry if the spelling is wrong)from ones memory..",Positive "I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the ""role playing"" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one.",Negative "My take on this, at our local festival where people would see me so often they thought me a better source than I may actually have been, began with a head shake: ""Well, I can't summarize the plot, but it's a really superb character study of an extremely scary man."" Then, slight embarrassment, I ran into someone who actually knew what had gone down, that is, from whom Trebor unwittingly gets his new heart. It'd been my last film in a long, long day halfway through the festival. Maybe I'd dozed. The better a film is the more likely it triggers daydreams that send me really dreaming. Don't know. Did know there was an O'Henry twist achingly just beyond my ken as things finished. And knew it had to do with the heart, hence the quietly hilarious talent search. My plot-loss remark had more to do with intricacies of Trebor's connections in France, his relation to the dog woman and so on, stuff I'd been wide awake for. Denis barely glances at details that might have anchored another director's treatment.

But I write these things too often from memory, especially festival films, films whose DVD I don't have at hand (Le Lait de la tendresse humaine is one of many examples.), and plot kinks fade much more quickly than broader impressions. Still, or already, L'Inrus in my memory is beyond all else a character study of a sort of dark-side superman, a super fiend not ensconced in genre or historical trappings but active and plausible, relatively soft-spoken, driven but patient, right among us. The scar, once he attains it, makes him, just visually I mean, in image, a sort of hybrid Frankenstein monster, mad doctor and creation all in one. The actual doctors are his tools. If he doesn't extract and install the heart himself, it's only because it's not possible. He's the force, always, the parasite consuming everyone he touches and finally himself. What else is he? To suggest that he's us, the First World versus the Third, seems too simple since he feeds no less on his fellow First Worlders, on all of us.

Denis's camera's eye - when it looks at things I know - goes usually where mine would, so I tend to trust her when she looks at things I don't know. Snow trekking, too-fast bicycling, and forest darkness I've known in small ways, but the South Seas not at all, so I made better entry into L'Intrus, both France and the crystalline isles of its finish, than into Beau Travail. L'Intrus is, for me, a very comfortable discomforting film. It's a sequence of places portrayed familiarly, with a intimacy that allows us to know them whether we've seen the reality or not. A single image, Trebor cycling, his massive weight on the thin racing frame, the sounds of violated air and shrieking tires, the asphalt ribbon, the dark-in-bright-sun evergreens, cued me that the film would be linear, a road trip, a single will-driven thrust.

Despite Trebor's personal power, he's a human failure. No matter who he's with, he's alone, though apparently he hasn't always been. His body aborts life twice, first to need the new heart, then despite it. L'Intrus is tragedy. Trebor is hubris.

I'm navigating perilously the thread of what I remember. Let's leave it at that.",Positive "This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...

The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in ""Police Academy"" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.

It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make ""L.A. Confidential"" ten years later...

Avoid this like the plague...",Negative "Watching beautiful women sneaking around, playing cops and robbers is one of the most delightful guilty pleasures the medium film lets me enjoy. So The House on Carroll Street was not entirely a waste of time, although the story is contrived and the screenplay uninspired and somewhat irritating.

There are many allusions to different Hitchcock pictures, not least the choice of Kelly McGillis in the starring role. She is dressed up as Grace Kelly, and she is not far off the mark. Not at all. But her character is not convincing. The way she is introduced to the audience, she should be someone with political convictions and a purpose in life. After all the movie deals with a clearly defined time period, true events and a specific issue. But the story degenerates within the first minutes into a sorry run-off-the-mill crime story with unbelievable coincidences, high predictability and a set of two dimensional characters. This is all the more regrettable, as the performances of the actors are good, as are the photography and the set design.

The finale in Central Station, New York is breath taking. It starts in the subterranean section and then moves up to the roof. The movie can be praised for its good use of architecture.",Negative "This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that",Negative "Prisons are not exactly renowned for their kind hospitality and 'happy vibes', what with stories of fights, chaos, murder and of course extreme male bonding! But the prison in this film is a different beast altogether. Horror films set in cells are, as you probably know, nothing particularly new as they emphasis and exaggerate the fear of claustrophobia and the inability of escape – two of the greatest themes in horror cinema. With such examples as THE CHAIR (Waldermar Korzeniowsky, 1988), THE GREEN MILE (Frank Darabont, 1999), ALIEN 3 (David Fincher, 1992)and of course the entire Women In Prison exploitation genre itself, another entry into this niche has to be something inventive and a lot of fun to boot in order to be recognised. Or at least that's what you'd have thought. PRISON is certainly an incredibly fun and enjoyable ride and it's somewhat of a shame that it isn't as well known as it should be.

The film, in short, centres on an old prison (well, duh!) which has been reopened. However, it's not just fellow inmates and guards the prisoners have to fear, but also a mean ass demon ghost spirit with only one thing on its mind; death! And boy, are we treated to some awesome death scenes! I won't spoil anything here for you but there are plenty of innovative and enjoyable murders all done by invisible hands.

Besides the special effects and the murders, this film also has another thing going for it; it's cast. Headlining, we have LORD OF THE RINGS (Peter Jackson, 2001-2003) star Viggo Mortensen (and for all those so inclined, yes, he does get naked) whose performance is not only highly believable, but is done with such skill that his Eastwood-esquire character is both bad-to-the-bone and likable (a very delicate mix). Add him to a cast of 'hey-wait-a-minute-I-know-that-guy' actors and you've got yourself one great set of stars. The characters themselves however lack three-dimensionality and more often than not come across as very stereotypical. We've got a black oculist, a hard-as-nails prison warden, a human-rights activist woman and plenty of other stock characters. But in all honesty, this 'fault' actually aids the film. Instead of boring character development in an over-long equilibrium, we are chucked, more or less, straight into the action and once it gets going (very early on) there's not a single scene that's a filler – it's balls to the wall plot. Unlike a certain SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Frank Darabont, 1994 )! Sharing conventions with the slasher genre, this is somewhat of a convention itself, and, in good ol' slasher genre tradition, PRISON punishes those who have been bad.

All in all this is an excellent little horror film and one which is sadly overlooked and unmentioned among the horror world. With an excellent cast and great special effects and rather original death scenes this film is highly recommended to horror fans. Don't be fooled into thinking it'll be a cheesy little film either, just because it was made in USA 1980s, it's far from cheesy (although the very end does ruin this) and, simultaneously, far from gritty and realistic (whilst it attempts to tackle issues such as prison rape, these are rather subtly done).

I give it 3.5 out of 5 luvs. A very entertaining horror film with some very nice touches indeed.",Positive "LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys.

Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values.

The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp",Positive "I saw the film twice in the space of one week, both times the at a cinema in Orpington, Kent, UK. The place was packed both times and people had to be turned away. From the start of the film with Henry Winkler getting 'injured' on the football field the whole audience was in uproar with laughter, laughter that lasted until the credits.

For those who love American wrestling this film is a must, but be ready to see Henry Winkler as you have never seen him before. Also look out for a very well known actor whose trademark wrestling move is a head-but!

If you get a chance watch this movie and it is family comedy entertainment at its best!",Positive "Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.",Negative "Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.

Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.

In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.

In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.

What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!",Negative "This is my FAVORITE ALL time movie. It used to be my Friday night movie with a pizza and bottle of wine when I was single. I first saw this movie with my aunt Brend and sister Chasity. I was in the 2nd grade. I fell in LOVE with Travolta and Sissy was my new best friend. I've read a lot of comments about why Bud left Sissy & how Sissy has to ""learn to act"" married. But let's go back and look at this for a second: SPOILER - My interpretation of the movie now, not when I was eight is this about Bud & Sissy's relationship takes a turn for the worst because she makes a fool of him at Gilley's riding the bull. They get in a huge fight. Bud tries to make Sissy jealous by asking Pam to dance. Sissy then thinks two wrongs will make a right and Wes asks her if ""she needs any help"". They're all on the dance floor acting like fools when Bud asks Pam, ""when are you going to take me home and rape me?"" Pam answers: ""When ever you're ready Cowboy"". Bud then goes home with Pam to her condo in downtown Houston. Which Daddy has bought for her with his oil money and ""all that that implies"". Bud is the one who cheats on Sissy. Sissy is waiting for Bud when he returns home the next day. Sissy is the ONE who leaves Bud. Then, it's up to Bud to prove to Sissy that he is a real ""cowboy"" and win her back.

Anyways, that's my interpretation. Everyone has their I'm sure! I love this movie.

And believe it or not, I got myself a REAL cowboy! I love him too! :)",Positive "In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's ""H.E.A.L.T.H."" treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer (""The breast that feeds the baby rules the world""). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best.",Positive "I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!",Negative "clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. ""hula"" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend ""hula.""",Positive "A movie that makes you want to throw yourself on a sword. I've seen schlock in my time but after viewing the wretched mess I don't think I can ever watch a another movie again. May God pity the souls who made this.

Premise- Ex-Army quiet stud, underwear model type character (well acted actually) goes looking for the girl who sent him a Xmas card while serving in the military. Lands in with her cabin living-granola type family who are right-wing loggers. Family takes to him and it takes 2 hours of our time for the chick to see he's a better catch than her liberal looking ,french wine drinking, porsche driving, loud cell phone talking, lazy, city slicking, Jewish looking fiancé.

The Bad- 1d characters, 1d themes. Being beat over the head with the Pro-Military theme. Ed Asner.

The Good- commercial breaks were long. Peter Jason. It ended.",Negative "Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.",Negative "There's some very clever humour in this film, which is both a parody of and a tribute to actors. However, after a while it just seems an exercise in style (notwithstanding great gags such as Balasko continuing the part of Dussolier, and very good acting by all involved) and I was wondering why Blier made this film. All is revealed in the ending, when Blier, directing Claude Brasseur, gets a phone call from his dad (Bernard Blier) - from heaven, and gets the chance to say how much he misses him. An effective emotional capper and obviously heartfelt. But there isn't really sufficient dramatic tension or emotional involvement to keep the rest of the film interesting throughout it's entire running time. Some really nice scenes and sequences, however, and anyone who likes these 'mosntres sacrés' of the French cinema should get a fair amount of enjoyment out of this film.",Positive "no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden ""gem"" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the ""5 cent baby attached to a fish pole"" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford ""good"" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.",Positive "I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.

Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.

I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.

Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!",Negative "I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.

This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.

Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.

Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.

",Positive "One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those ""nothing to do days"". i will see the new one and i hope it is better!",Positive "I remember hitch hiking to Spain at 25, getting a lift from, what turned out to be, two fleeing Italian small crooks. They were doing a lot outside the law, but from the other side carrying a little portrait of Jesus in the pocket for their protection...Just and unjust, good and bad, criminal and correct where here in a new combination, outside of the categories I used to know. 'Les Valseuses' gives me, although a film and not real life, a picture close to my own experiences: the intenseness of each moment as soon as you leave 'all behind' and go for the momentous, whatever comes your way, it's another state of mind and also 'dangerous' form of life, because, as we all know, there are people who are not ready for this and willing to persecute you for 'stealing' and so on...This film touches 'values', it's a story about 'what's right and wrong': morals. It's resurrection of the individual fighting him/ herself free against the 'false morals' and conformism...There's danger all the way, because, how far can you go with your own 'freedom' and crossing your own moral borders and that of other people? What to do with people who are willing to hurt you, put you in jail or even shoot at you for the things that you do, like ""stealing"" some petrol from a multinational oil company for you fifth hand car? Les Valseuses re-awakens these questions in me, because morality, in contradiction to the usual 'media message', is quite complex...",Positive "This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.

The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.

A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.",Negative "It's rare, nowadays, to find a romantic comedy that isn't incredibly disgusting in short doses throughout the entire movie (eg. Big Fat Greek wedding; Me, Myself & Irene). There were only a couple of unnecessarily demented jokes in this movie, nothing unpalatably profane. All around, it was a cute movie with likable characters. I thought the ending was a little abrupt. It feels like they should have ended it at the world series for a real bang up finish. The acting left a little to be desired, but was made up for by the pace of the story. If I'd known it was a Farrelly brothers movie I would have assumed it to be a stomach turning piece of garbage and not watched it, but it seems that even they are capable of accidentally making an okay movie. Good for them, I hope they pull their heads out the rest of the way and start consistently making good films.",Positive "Will all of you please lay the hell off Todd Sheets!?! Let's give you $30,000 to make a movie and see what you come up with! The guy got 735 zombies and a regular cast to work for FREE! Sure the acting is laughable at times. Yes the make-up is not greatest you'll ever see. But it's not the worst either, if you want to see that, go watch Zombie Nation with it's raccoon zombies.

This is pure, good old fashioned Guerilla Film-making! Todd is a consummate professional, and an all around nice guy. There are holes in the plot, yes. The plot does seem far-fetched. But what the hell, I still love this movie. I wish Todd Sheets would come out of hiding and do the remake of this that he was going to. If anyone has ever tried to make a movie, they know that just finishing it, is an achievement in and of itself.",Positive "I don't know what else to say about this horrible movie that hasn't already been said. Honestly I have only myself to be angry with. I should have know better when I saw the title of this movie that it would be a horrible piece of crap, but I loved War Games so I indulged my whim. I will live to regret that decision the rest of my life. From the very start when the government people explained that their super computer could determine who a terrorist was just by how well they played a video game I knew I was in for a ride though the land-that-good-writing-forgot. The list of very, very, very bad plot lines, dialog, and acting is so long I would crash IMDb if I tried to post it. To those people who said that they have seen worst movies than this one please tell me. I am actually curious to see something that could top this steaming pile of horse dung.",Negative "I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, ""Holly"" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.

The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part.

Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to ""save"" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.

I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate ""Holly"" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.",Negative "This is a truly classic movie in its story, acting, and film presentation. Wonderful actors are replete throughout the whole movie, Miss Sullivan, and Jimmy Stewart being the foremost characters. In real life she greatly admired, and liked Jimmy, and indeed gave him his basically first acting roles, and helped him be more calm with his appearance on the set. The ""chemistry"" between the two was always apparent, and so warm and enjoyable to behold. She was such a beautiful, young woman, and so sweet in her personality portrayals. The story of these two young people, and how they eventually come together in the end is charming to watch, and pure magical entertainment. Heart warming presentations are also given by the other supporting actors in this marvelous story/movie. I whole heartily give Miss Sullivan a perfect 10 in this Golden Age Cinema Classic, that has a special appeal for all generations. A must see for all!",Positive "Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.

DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.",Negative "Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in ""Still Standing"" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in ""Brokeback Mountain"",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!",Negative Eddie Izzard is genius with his non-stop humor. I could listen all day. His unique approach to life is quite logical. His understanding of discovery (such as the Heimlich Maneuver) is creative. Eddie Izzard captures the heart of what we think. I don't know when I laughed so hard at anyone's off-beat mind.,Positive "Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this ""documentary"" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a ""Modern Cannibal Tale."" I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.

Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had ""a small piece."" That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie ""The Life Of A True Don Juan"" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played ""just the tip."" Unbelievable.

The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.

Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.

The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because ""Keep The River To Your Right"" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.",Negative "I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like ""Re-animator"" or ""Castle Freak"".

My Grade: C

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme

Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!",Negative "This was, undoubtedly, the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. The first part of the movie, though strange, has a light and amusing quality to it. The journey begins on such a peaceful note, detailing and emphasizing the beauty of the hills of Appalachia. But that is misleading beyond belief. The obvious social problems (inbreeding) and the deformities of the countryside's inhabitants are only the first disturbing aspects of the movie. I can still hear Bobby moaning in pain, and I shudder at the thought. Lewis's leg made me wince. Yet, while the movie was, on the whole, very disturbing and distressing, it posed some interesting questions. When is it moral, or right to take another individual's life? What can morality drive us to do, or not do, in some cases? And are dignity and moral integrity more important than life itself? Whatever conclusions one may draw from the film, it is an achievement in its own right (despite certain aspects that were chillingly real and gruesome).",Positive "Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.

Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.

The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.

Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.

Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.

Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.",Negative "Saw this movie recently and had higher hopes. Not so much based upon the director, who hadn't made a cinematographic release before, but more based upon its cast. Harvey Keitel, Scott Glenn and Craig Wasson (lead role in Body double, a Brian De Palma masterpiece) have all starred in great movies. Not together though, and this fact hasn't exactly changed because of this one.

The film is unbelievable, very predictable and cliché. The only thing that might make it slightly appealing is the selection of locations on which it's been shot. In my humble opinion: don't waste your time on this one.",Negative "Titanic is a long but well made tragic adventure love story that takes place during the ill-fated voyage on the unsinkable ship. Writer/Director James Cameron has done a great job of making this movie about a fictional love story between two very different people and combining that with the real event of the Titanic that sunk after hitting an iceberg on April 15, 1912 claiming thousands of lives who perished in the icy freeing waters of the North Atlantic. The two leads in the film are great in their roles including Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. They make for a good on-screen couple. DiCpario and Winslet also had genuine chemistry together which made the romance that eventually blossoms between them that much more believable. They both showed real talent when this one came out and both of them have continued to show just that in their most recently films as well. The rest of the supporting cast including Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher, Jonathan Hyde, and Bill Paxton in a small role are equally impressive as their characters who help bring them to life in this film. The love story, the action, suspense, and the special effects are magnificent done especially for that time. The horror of the situation the characters were in felt so real because it really happened making you want most of them to survive this life and death situation. The pacing was a little slow at times and it was a little long but the rest of the movie made up for it's few flaws. Titanic makes for a great date movie which is sure to make some girls cry almost every time they watch it. The fact that this really happened definitely added to the movie making you feel sorry for all the lives lost when the Titanic sunk into the Atlantic after hitting an iceberg. Overall Titanic is a tragic heartbreaking story about two people who fall in love while on the ill-fated ship thats brought to life by the exceptional performances from the cast especially DiCaprio and Winslet who definitely make this movie worth the time to watch.",Positive "Time for Hollywood to sit up and take notice! If the actors are acting snooty, all you need to do is get the animators who worked on this little marvel. Renaissance is probably the first animation flick which makes you forget that you are not seeing human beings. Although the voice overs by the cast (Craig, McCormack, Pryce etc.) are some of the best i have ever heard but even then the emotions portrayed by the 'cartoons' are unnerving.

This style of animation is not very new but the use of light and shadows makes the movie a living painting. Ironically, such technical wizardry makes you forget that this is actually a very very nice movie. The pacing and plot development are marvelous and the dialogs crisp.

Plot: Disappearance of a mega corporation's top employee unravels a tale of deceit and corruption with a Cold hearted hero at the helm. Can't say much without giving it all away...except that while the movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, the climax leaves you speechless.

A must watch..even for the 'grown-ups' who smirk at 'cartoons'",Positive "Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.

Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.

And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!!",Negative "I understand that Paramount wanted to film this with the Rodgers and Hart score, but couldn't work out the copyright problems, so Burke and Van Heusen who wrote the between them the most songs for Bing Crosby contributed a very nice score.

I read Leonard Maltin saying that this movie, ""fit Crosby like a glove"" and I couldn't have put it better. No, it's not Mark Twain's satire, it's a Bing Crosby film and in 1949 Crosby was the most bankable star in Hollywood. For once Paramount used technicolor and Rhonda Fleming was never lovelier on the screen. This was a woman that technicolor was invented for.

William Bendix's Brooklyn origins kinda stand out, but it's to a good comic effect. The trio of Crosby, Bendix, and Sir Cedric Hardwicke have a rollicking good time with Busy Doing Nothing. Bing has one of his patented upbeat philosophical numbers with If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon.

The third song he sings Once and For Always by himself and with Rhonda Fleming. That song was nominated for best song, but lost to Baby It's Cold Outside.

Nice also that Bing managed to record the score for Decca with Rhonda Fleming and Bendix and Hardwicke.

One thing I like about this film is that it shows Crosby's comic talents without Bob Hope. I like the Road pictures, but Bing was a comic talent onto himself and this film better demonstrates than any other.

This is Crosby at the top of his game.",Positive "I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one.

Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.

Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned.",Negative "ever watched. It deals so gently and subtly not only with Aids (which is only alluded) and gay life, but also with old age, dying and death. It's a deep and beautiful movie, (also visually), of a very special director. Highly recommanded1",Positive "I saw this film again and noticed how close it is to the novel if we ignore the part about Cary's [Leslie Howard] childhood. Considering that

at the time not much can be shown on the screen, [not that there is much in the novel] the obsession of the character with Mildred [Bette Davis] is very well conveyed to the audience. I recommend this film to anyone who ever fell for another person and the other side tried to take advantage of him or her. I have read that Maugham was asked to make a recording of the novel for sale, but when he started to in the studio he began crying and could not finish more than a few lines and whole project was chucked. One can tell the novel is written from the heart and the film is a good

adaptation of a part of it at least.",Positive "Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed.

Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.

Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.

2'11"" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.

Interesting look at a 40s horror film.",Negative """Some day, we'll walk in the rays of a beautiful sun. Some day, when the world is much brighter""- The 5 Stairsteps ""O-o-h Child""

Movies about Black teenagers usually involve inner city gangs dealing drugs or committing violence to a hip-hop soundtrack. Films about the everyday problems of ordinary inner city teens are hard to find, yet there is an undiscovered gem that I would like to recommend. Our Song, by Jim McKay is about three girls in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn who learn that their high school will be closed for asbestos removal and must decide on their future direction, one that may involve going their separate ways. The story is told from the point of view of a 15-year old, not from an adult reminiscing about the past as in most coming of age movies. Avoiding the mandatory street slang and excessive use of F-words, it delivers an honest and loving portrait of three friends at a crossroads in their life. The girls: Lanisha (Kerry Washington), Joycelyn (Anna Simpson), and Maria (Melissa Martinez) are in their sophomore year at the local high school. They are active members of the Jackie Robinson Steppers, a real-life marching band whose rehearsals for a Labor Day parade provide discipline and purpose to their lives.

Similar to David Gordon Green's George Washington but less stylized, the film showcases non-professional black and Latino actors with Kerry Washington as the standout. While the performances have some amateurish moments, I became so involved with the story that I forgot the girls were even acting. Maria, whose father is in jail, has learned that she is pregnant by Terrell, a local student. She wants to have the baby in spite of the fact that she is only 15 and knows that Terrell is probably not going to be of much help. Joycelyn works in an up-scale dress shop but dreams about becoming a singer. In a very poignant scene in her bedroom, she pretends to be talking to her fans, then lies down in bed to recite one of her poems. She is close to Lanisha and Maria at the beginning but drifts off to make friends outside of the neighborhood. None of the girls receive much support at home and Maria is too afraid to even tell her mother about her baby. Yet, the single moms are not typical movie deadbeats or alcoholics. They are warm and loving parents whose time with their children is limited because of the pressure of supporting the family.

Lanisha's parents are divorced but she is able to visit her father, a doorman in a luxury apartment building and talk about music. Her mother is comforting when Lanisha learns that a friend in the neighborhood has committed suicide, a somewhat melodramatic plot point in an otherwise realistic film. As the summer winds down, the girls drift apart and each decides on a different course. There are no big dramatic moments, however, only the sad recognition of the inevitability of change. Though we do not have blinders on about the frustrations that may await them, we identify with their hopes and dreams without dwelling on the negative. Our Song is an emotionally satisfying film about growing up in the projects that refuses to see life in any terms other than possibility.",Positive "While I suppose this film could get the rap as being Anti-Vietnam, while watching it I didn't feel that such was the case as much as the film was simply an honest look into the perspective of the young guys being trained for a war that the public didn't support.... it showed their fear, their desperation, their drive... all of it, out in the open, naked. As a soldier myself alot of the themes rang true to me in my experience in the military - especially boot camp. On the whole this movie, although it was shot on a very small budget, looks great, is very well put together, and features excellent acting and directing. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for another excellent Colin Farrell film. 10/10",Positive "Just after the end of WWII Powell & Pressburger were asked to come up with something to try to heal the rift developing between the UK & the USA. At the time there was a lot of ""Overpaid, over sexed and over here"" type of comments. Somehow they came up with this masterpiece.

My favourite movie of ALL time. It's got everything. Romance, poetry, emotion, religion, drama and very quirky.

I can never explain exactly why, but it hits all the right buttons and although I've seen it hundreds of times (yes, really) I'm still guaranteed to be in tears at many points throughout.

Was it the magnificent acting, the wonderful sets, the inspired script ? Who knows. But *DO* watch it and you'll see what I mean.",Positive "At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. ""Guys and Dolls,"" the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (""All About Eve"") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in ""Roman Holiday"") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor (""From Here To Eternity"") and Best Actor (""On the Waterfront"") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing ""Luck Be a Lady Tonight"" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with ""Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat."" The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes.",Positive "I have seen a lot of stupid movies in my life, a lot, but this is without a doubt the worst one ever! I usually like dumb movies, if they are somewhat entertaining, but I can't even think of one good thing about this movie. I like ""Teen Witch"" for Heaven's sake. But S.I.C.K. has horrible acting, lame porn music throughout the whole thing, and even the sex scenes sucked! I would have to compare the lameness of this movie to the likes of ""Twin Dragons"", ""Puppet Master vs the Demonic Toys"" or even ""a Very Brady Sequel"". Although, this is by far worse then any of those. I beg you, don't even waste your time. Believe me, its 2 hours you'll never get back.",Negative "I have seen this movie a while back, after ordering it for my friend, who is a big Dominic Monaghan fan. The movie itself was very interesting, though it had its positive points, which for me was the Donnie Darko kind of ""wtf?"" factor after the movie had ended.

Of course, with positive also come negative points. To me, the young girl in the film was incredibly good, and Dominic Monaghan did a good job as well. Unfortunately I don't have this opinion about Daniel Burke, who played Lonnie. This might just be me, and I'm not claiming to be a serious critic, in the way that I don't find myself skilled enough, but he just didn't seem convincing as an actor. But perhaps it's even more striking then, for although I am not a critic, this does get my attention.

To conclude, over all I think it's definitely a film worth watching. It's interesting, confusing, and you just should have seen it.",Positive "This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.

This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.

Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.",Negative "I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in ""Desperately Seeking Susan""; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, ""Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!"" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, ""Swept Away..."", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for ""Worst Actor""), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an ""Odd Couple""-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...",Negative "One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten.",Positive "This movie is the first time movie experience for several people in the cast. All of them are experienced actors and have played in several TV series and plays. Sahan Gokbakar is a well known comedian in Turkey. It's kind of strange to see him in a thriller, while he is at the peak of his comedy career in Turkey. This movie is Togan Gokbakar's first long shot and pretty much the first experience as a director. But they all did a good job. We are happy to see such enthusiastic young cast. They seem very promising for the future of the Turkish film Industry. Doga Rutkay being long time sweetheart of Sahan Gokbakar, is also a talented actress, who is known for her recent play in ""number 27"" theatrical play and several TV series.",Positive "This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one.",Positive "I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...

The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad!

It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.

Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!",Negative "Why review good movies when you can review ""Trancers II?""

Ooh, this film is soooo lame. I can just picture the cast and crew driving around L.A. with a camcorder, hurling extras in silly monster make-up at poor, long-suffering Tim Thomerson. The stars' families actually turn up to play cameos, probably because Full Moon couldn't afford ""real"" extras. Lame effects, lame sets, and a script so convoluted it would take eons to untie all the knots - this must be classic Trancers!

And yet...and yet...it rules. Note this is the same thing I say about ""Trancers IV."" I say it because it's true. What can beat watching an old guy in a trench coat mow down zombies, then bust out with quips like, ""Don't worry ladies, they're bio-degradable""? Well, lots of things could be better, but anyway this is still good stuff.

My only significant reservation is Megan Ward, who really stinks up the joint. She's a lousy rival for Helen Hunt's character - they're both young pieces of eye candy, and it would've been more effective if they actually contrasted a bit more. Oh well, you can't have everything. At least the wonderful plot device of the ""long second watch"" is back in place, and we've got more of Hap Ashby, the least-convincing athlete in the history of cinema (oh, wait a minute - he's got a rival in the form of David Ogden Steirs in ""Creator"").

I haven't seen this lately, but I do seem to remember that Martine Beswick runs away twice during the final battle. Hooray for lousy continuity! Just one of the many highlights in this fine film.",Negative "Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal.

The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.

The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.

And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.

This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card.

In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.

In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.

It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.",Positive "This is an excellent film about a traditional working class family in Northern England. Filmed on location in Bolton, it stars James Mason as the father who is the dominant force within his home. Or so it seems. Cleverly, the film, based on the play, portrays the complexities of family life. The supporting cast is terrific as well, with many familiar faces lending support.",Positive "This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond.",Positive I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good.,Positive "When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.

The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.

The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.

As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.

Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.",Negative "Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...

During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.

1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.

It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.

If the producers changed the name of the contest to ""Last Clown Standing"", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?",Negative I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.,Negative "!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!

You`d think a story involving Archie Grey Owl - An Englishman posing as a red indian - would have a massive amount of humour involved . In fact I`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . However Richard Attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making GREY OWL a serious drama . Worse , he`s made an extremely dire film too . Pierce Brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between Grey Owl and Pony ( Played by the equally wooden Annie Gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . But to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray Archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he`s a native American . The producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of Archie being an Englishman - That`s why I wrote "" Possible spoiler "" it`s not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is English , but it`s obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there`s absolutely no surprise involved.

Yes I do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . Theodore Roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . And it should also be remembered that with the exception of SOYLENT GREEN ( And possibly THE TWO TOWERS if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . In fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes GREY OWL , a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor",Negative "Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of ""serious Woody,"" Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.

Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time.

Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last ""scoop"" about the identity of the notorious ""Tarot killer."" Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.

Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes ""from his point of view we're scum."" A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.

As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's ""The Hall of the Mountain King,"" compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's ""alma mater"" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: ""I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism."" And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: ""If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise."" All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.",Positive "I see where a few people involved in this debacle wrote reviews to share their side of the story, and I thought what they wrote was helpful in understanding it. The fact that they basically came up with excuses -- rewrites, budget constraints, production formats etc -- simply underlines how bad this movie is. And my criticisms in panning it are not personally directed but simply a warning that this one doesn't make the cut.

It's watchable, but barely so. There are plot holes in every corner, the dialogue borders on the ridiculous, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. The modestly interesting feature of a hologram interacting with a recon team get drowned in silly dialogue like who makes a meal in the midst of what is supposed to be a tense and deadly encounter with an unknown enemy. Would ya wrassle us up some Hamburger Helper Sally, between us getting killed by these automated carpet sweepers? Apparently this elite team equipped with the latest gizmos and red plastic tubed wonder armor has no access to MREs. Once they get into the last rooms they treat the place more like a four star motel than a deadly encounter zone.

The rationale for the encounter with the fearsome Rook is that it can't be killed single handedly. Yet only one scene ago, the hero making that case abandoned King to do exactly that. Huh? Vivian Woo was attractive and hands down the best acted character in the movie. But that's not saying much.",Negative "After viewing several episodes of this series, I have come to the conclusion that television producers are completely devoid of any form of originality. Here is an old science fiction standby, ingeniously wrapped in the form of a truly original concept - and still they can only -almost - make it work.

The dialog is good! The male actors are reasonably proficient at their professions. Most of the characters are well drawn, with special kudos to the hero and his more than likeable side-kick. And most of the episode plots come across as palatable. So what could be wrong? How about the, the female characters and the cosmeticly perfect actresses who are chosen to portray them.

The producers insist on portraying the female characters in this - almost good - series, in a manner that makes the end product appear to be a misplaced cheerleader. Why, I ask, why?

The episodes all fall flat whenever the female guest star or recurring character comes on screen. These actresses are all totally unbelievable in their roles, and you don't actually have to see them to know they are incapable of their acting assignments. A blind person could tell. Just listen to them talk. They deliver their dialog with all the drama and effect of a 16 year old at the high school prom. Who would believe these women are Phd scientist, senators, corporate executives and medical doctors?

In a nut shell, if the producers have their choice of a Stockard Channing or a Morgan Fairchild, guess who they'll choose - every time? And of course, the series suffers for it. Too bad!",Positive "Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.

Succinctness?

Soul?

Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.",Negative "A classic series that should be at least repeated or released on DVD.Billy Toth,after realising he is adopted after the death of his parents,embarks on a journey to find his real parents.After various rites of passage,his search culminates in the discovery that his fathers identity was stolen and used by a human trafficker in Europe!If i remember correctly,the series ends on the Austrian(?] ski slopes and a cliff top chase resulting in the death of Billys fathers betrayer. This series was all filmed on location in various destinations round Europe and appeared polished and incredibly well made with some episodes crossing into the realms of film noir and crime thriller.The main arc was often eclipsed by the slices of life that Billy went through during his years of toiling to find his mother and fathers secrets.A class act but underrated and forgotten.",Positive "Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking ""well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever."" I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood ""movies"" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking ""oh man, this is gonna be sick."" After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.

Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in ""WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!"" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.

The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.",Negative "I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.",Negative "I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.

Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.

A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)

Oh geez… This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.

I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.

So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy… it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.",Negative "So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how ""Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'"" 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it.",Positive "I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the ""gratuitous"" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.

Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.",Negative "Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.",Negative "Things to Come is indeed a classic work of speculative fiction; both an essay on the destructive nature of war and the terrors of progress. It makes some surprising accurate depictions of the war that was to follow a few years later, but is woefully naive in it's Utopian ideals.

Raymond Massey, Cedric Hardwicke, and Ralph Richardson make up a fine cast, although the drama is played more as a stage piece, than a work of cinema. There are grandiose, if somewhat stilted speeches, often delivered as if the actor is trying to reach the back of the theater. However, there are some profound words there. Is technology the savior of mankind, or the instrument of its destruction? The film is a visual feast, if one can detach oneself from the age of the effects. Sure, Hollywood is more sophisticated today, but rarely as inventive. For the imaginative, the third act is a treat: a world with underground cities, massive deco bombers, space cannons, gyro copters, and secret organizations of scientist saviors. It has all of the makings of a sci-fi pulp adventure, but instead uses the trappings for a philosophical exercise.

Things to Come and Metropolis were the hallmarks of neolithic Hollywood science fiction cinema. They are operatic in scope, and visually inspiring. Technology has long left them behind, but their ideas still burst forth. There is an artistry there, one with more heart and emotion than the computer generated mass-produced cinema of today. These films are the products of artisans, not industrialists.",Positive "Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.

The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.

The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.

I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.

I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,""invisible"", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour.",Positive "Professor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.

In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.

Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack – not very memorable. The ""look"" – I would describe much of it as ""muddy"". The plot – predictable. The action – there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.

Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie – the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",Negative "The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.

Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.

The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!!",Positive "Oh, what a bad, bad, very bad movie! Cowritten by and starring Sylvester Stallone—that should have been enough—and featuring too many rock-climbing scenes, vertigo, falling, and scene-chewing villains and a botched airborne heist. There are two plots, both lame. One involves a traumatic failed rescue, and the other involves bad people wrecking an airplane for booty, and killing various harmless people whenever possible. The usually reliable John Lithgow, perhaps depressed by the sheer awfulness of the product, is reduced to sneering and calling those for whom he doesn't care ""Bostid!"" in a vague approximation of an English accent. Janine Turner, who was sprightly and enigmatic when she played Maggie on Northern Exposure, is sadly wasted in the part of a rescue climber and pilot. Stallone is stolid and muscle-headed. No deathless lines in this one. No living lines, either.",Negative "This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch",Negative "Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.

Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.

The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.

Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...

With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.",Negative "I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to ""stop hanging around!"", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.",Positive "The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.",Negative "I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. ""Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah."" OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.

Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, ""OMG! I didn't mean to!"" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims ""haven't been stalked like this before..."" (Scarecrow's official tag line)

To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.

This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.",Negative Portrays the day to day stark reality of survival on a ranch in the old west. Outstanding acting by both principal actors. This doesn't even feel like a movie...you feel like you're there. Animal activists should beware...many scenes are obviously not just realistic...they are real.,Positive "This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....

This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.

This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!

If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!",Positive "0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.",Negative "War Inc. is a funny but strange film. The actors are likable, the film is likable also, but I don't know how to describe the plot. I will go into the plot later on. This is a movie with some weird casting choices. Besides John Cusack as a hit-man, which we saw years ago in Grosse Point blank which I liked.

Here we have Hilary Duff playing a Russian pop star named Yonica Babyya or something like that. Her character is odd. There is a scene where she sticks a scorpion down her pants. And hits on Hauser(Cusack). There is a twist in the end involving the two characters. It makes sense.

That is the only casting choice I am going into. Cause it just plain strange. The whole movie is strange. But at times incredibly funny and I was never bored. Here we have some of the best actors out there. Excluding Miss Duff. She ain't great. But here we have John Cusack, Marisa Tomeii, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley. See what I mean?

This is the story of a hit-man named Hauser(Cusack). He is sent down to some Middle Eastern city to put a hit on an oil man named Omar Sheriif(not the actor). While trying to deal with his own personal problems, he has to help out the wedding of a popstar(played by Hilary Duff). And he falls in love with a news reporter(played by Marisa Tomeii). There is a thing about the popstar though. Hauser is disgusted by her. There is a scene where she is singing a song to him and afterwards he throws up.

The twist in the end of the film reveals kind of why. The thing about the twist is that I did kind of see it coming. But that doesn't matter. This is a strange, funny, and entertaining comedy. I love most of the actors. So really, how could I not recommend it?

War,Inc.:3.5/5",Positive "My 7-year-old daughter loved it, as Disney execs crassly calculated that she would. That's the problem with ""Air Buddies."" It's a strictly by-the-numbers children's film filled with carefully calculated cuteness, a couple politically correct morals, and enough potty humor to avoid the dreaded G rating. As a parent, or even as a 10-year-old, you've seen it all before, and done better before. Think ""101 Dalmatians Meets Home Alone"" and you get the general idea. I'm of the opinion that a good children's story is a good story, period. ""Air Buddies,"" which is about as original as recycled paper, fails to meet that standard. It isn't the worst video your child could watch, but there are megatons of better ones.",Negative "Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14A

Fear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.

Runtime:88min

10/10",Positive "I don't hand out ""ones"" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's ""Gas!"" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.

I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie ""Whiffs"" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).

Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with ""Whiffs"" than Corman did with ""Gas!"" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.

What's wrong with ""Gas!""? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.

""Gas!"" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, ""Gas!"" falls somewhere between ""Last Year at Marienbad"" and George Clooney's remake of ""Solaris"" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).

Judicious editing would have decimated ""Gas!"" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.

Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.",Negative "Lost, probably the best t.v series ever made. the storyline is clever and when all your questions are answered watching one episode, 100 more are raised. if lost can carry on it's magnificent ways and not get too carried away then it will be stapled the best show ever. The survivors of a plane crash are forced to live with each other on a remote island, a dangerous new world that poses unique threats of its own. after reading this your thinking how on earth can that be interesting? and heres your answer, every season SO FAR has always been full of surprises, your always questioning your self why did that just happened and what's gonna happen next each time, very unexpected thing's happen and the story goes on wonderfully SO FAR! The series just sucks you in, it's chilling and very addictive, everything from the wonderful creators and directing to the magnificent performances by the cast creates a very believable story. Lost is simply unbelievable, amazing, highly entertaining, top notch, t.v at it's best.How ever you want to put it.

Lost beat's all other show's by a landslide. And if your hating or criticising Lost you don't know how to watch t.v or watch drama. Lost simply doesn't disappoint, you would think a series carrying on for so long can't keep getting better. But it does! It just keep's on flowing it's unlike anything you would ever think off. ""Every thing happens for a reason."" And that is truly shown in the series. Eventually you will reach a point were all the clues and everything that's happened or being done adds up. You will feel and realise how the characters have changed and how and why everything is going on.

The 10 minutes of excitement: You see something you didn't see coming, something major has happened to character or on the island. There's hope somewhere. You see a major twist that can or will change everything. You hear your thought's churn, you wonder what's gonna happen next. Your heart beating. The 30 minutes of brilliance: You see a flawless scenes, tension building, you hear wonderful music by Michael Giacchino. You see great flash backs, impressive acting. You see wittiness, chilling atmosphere, which then get's converted back into tension.

Everyone has there show that they are addicted too, that they can't get enough of, that they admire every minute and can't wait for the next episode, That they talk about 24/7. Too me and many others it's this series. Lost. Once you start watching, you won't get enough. The creators did a flawless job. Lost is completely unique and original, you won't see anything like it. The clever idea of ""flashbacks and flashforwards"" and something major and different in every season sucks your thoughts. Would they ever make a series like ""LOST""? Something so interesting and something you will always remember. It simply has stunned the world when it hit t.v. A new generation of dramatic/sci-fi. A instant classic before it reached out to the viewers.

I'm sure you all heard of lost and it's 5 star reviews, and your annoying friend that won't stop telling you about it, so what's stopping you from watching?

Every episode leads to something new and it just doesn't stop getting better and better, you get more interested as it goes along, you learn things that are on the island that you wouldn't even think off. The characters start to become very likable, and if your the critic type you would love to see Lost in further detail, things like how the relationship between characters develop and how they learn the ways to under look and take on challenges from the Island. All together it's a great drama and a flawless series. I guess we just all hope that lost will not have a downfall in the episodes to come and go to far.....so if you don't watch lost, read the comment from the top again and you should change your mind. Seeing is believing, so until you start watching you will never know .I strongly recommend this masterpiece of series: LOST!! start watching!!! You have not seen nothing until you watch LOST!!!",Positive "This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again)",Negative "I was lucky enough to see this at a pre-screening last night (Oct. 20) and I was incredibly surprised by the wonderful plot and genuinely heart felt acting.

While the plot is not particularly complicated or exceptionally new, the story unfolds in a way that feels fresh, unique, and distinctly ""indy"" in style. It isn't something that can easily be compared to films of the past, it's a unique take on a sort of classic middle-aged depressed love story.

I was particularly struck by the casting of the film. Down to every last extra in the family, it was a beautiful and talented cast. The three daughters did a wonderful job, the talent was evenly dispersed between them and none of them ""out-shone"" the other two.

It was truly a delightful film, appropriate for all ages and laugh out loud funny while also being truly touching and heart warming. It was a wonderful break from the sex jokes and nudity of recent films.",Positive "An overblown melodrama typical of its period (mid-1950s) and appropriate matinée food. Rock Hudson, the hulk everyone always falls in love with, plays his usual stereotype role, but whereas in Giant, made the same year, when his material and co-stars (Taylor & Dean) were above average, in this movie he is just not good enough to raise the calibre beyond a mushy tale of how difficult it is to be both rich and happy. The self-destructive brother and sister (Robert Stack, reeling his way through the film in a drunken stupor, and Dorothy Malone, playing a vampish poor little rich girl totally over the top) end up the losers and Hudson gets Bacall - who is rather wooden in this part which does not have enough character or wit to get her going. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the good end happily and the bad unhappily, that is the meaning of fiction. However, I was interested to read that the film is based on a true story which vindicated the plot. Like other films of the period, homosexuality is disguised in heterosexual terms. Maybe the film could be remade: Stack's character would ring truer if he was hiding homosexual feelings for Mitch by marrying. Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven greatly improved on All That Heaven Allows , also directed by Sirk. Perhaps Haynes could remake Written on the Wind and give us a truly memorable film.",Positive "...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.

The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).

I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!",Negative """My Left Foot"" is a pretty impressive film that tells the story of Christy Brown, an artist who was crippled with cerebral palsy and learned to paint with his left foot, the only limb in his body he had control over. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Oscar as Best Actor for this film, which I'm not absolutely certain was deserved, but is still noteworthy. Day-Lewis give Brown a realistic and occasionally almost humorous touch. Brenda Fricker, as Brown's devoted mother, also won an Oscar for a believable and touching role. My problem with this film is that it is a bit too real at times. When Brown is in desperation and must help someone and do it all with his left foot, the film can be difficult to watch. This gives it an often depressing feel that may turn off some viewers for a time. However, if you look beyond that, you will see a sense of hope and inspiration for those who have handicaps and other difficulties to overcome. Those of us who are not crippled and still consider ourselves to have problems are inspired by this film, because if somewhat with a much worse condition than us can overcome their difficulties, we can certainly do the same thing. Well made, occasionally enjoyable, but difficult to watch. May not be for everyone, but not bad at all.

*** out of ****",Positive "Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. ""Cinderella"" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from ""Flashdance""--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg (""Ferris Bueller's Day Off"") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one!",Positive "I watched SHORE LEAVE the other day. I've seen it so many times, and I never get tired of it. Strangely enough, every time I watch it lately, it takes me right back to the very first time I saw it. Including this time. Must be that sense of mystery and ""What IS going on here?"" about it.

Oddly enough, the one part of the story that ALWAYS felt awkward and uncomfortable for me, this time, actually had a HUGE effect on me-- Ruth. I think a lot of it was Gerald Fried's score. A real masterpiece, that! The romantic section was reused-- much more extensively-- in THIS SIDE OF PARADISE. But of course, it debuted here. I get the impression that, out of all the girls Kirk knew over the years, she may have been the ""sweetest"". When she said, ""Do you have to go?"", combined with the music, I could really feel the pain she must have felt at not being able to have him stay with her.

Someone commented online that Ruth looked older than he was, yet she wasn't supposed to have aged at all in 15 years. Which makes me think... MAYBE she was one of the teachers at the academy. Kirk had an affair with an older woman! (Perhaps he thought back to this in ""MIRI"" when he told Janice, ""I never get involved with older women."" Maybe he meant, ""...anymore.""

Reading ST reviews the other day, I see where someone compared WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF? with I, MUDD. But it seems SHORE LEAVE oughta be in there, too. What are all those ""people"" if not androids? And could ""The Caretaker"" be related to ""The Old Ones"" from the earlier episode? Whoever he is, he seems to be one of the RARE cases in ST where you have a race that is actually ""superior"" as opposed to merely thinking they are.

Yeoman Barrows seems to be filling in for Yeoman Rand. Considering how much attention Dr. McCoy showered on her, it's just one more frustrating example of a potentially good character who appears once and then never shows up again! Sheesh.

One thing missing from the last several I've watched that snuck back in here was, Spock smiling. He was! I saw him. I really prefer knowing there's 2 sides to him going on inside all the time, rather than this ""submerged"" business. When he said, ""Enjoy yourself, sir."" near the beginning, you could see it wasn't just his addressing his superior officer, but talking to his friend. And at the end, when he needlessly says, ""Totally illogical!"", I can't help but think he does it purely to provoke a reaction. He may not be smiling or laughing, but I think he likes seeing his fellow crew members around him happy.",Positive "I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for ""Scarface."" It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.

The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to ""save"" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to ""stop"" them.

That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture (""Didja see dat?"" and ""Crikey!"") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.",Negative "The Education of Little Tree is just not as good as it could have been. Little Tree's education is about things like the circle of life and how you should look at a star to help you. Whatever happened to the three R's? Readin' 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic? When the idiot back talks the teacher at the boarding school place he starts crying and talking to the sky. Oh my gosh. Sure, the lady was a little harsh, but then James Cromwell's character comes and takes him away, leaving the audience thinking that Little Tree was absolutely right. He should learn to adapt to new discipline. Those were the times! Talking to a star is not going to change a thing! Little Tree needs to learn that his adoring guardians are not always right.",Negative "I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...

I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first applause goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply wonderful and got into it,especially Gackt reflects his characters emotions and changes pretty well,I like many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is good but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it still has brilliant moments,but the real jewel of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments but it's OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really well developed and touching at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some memorable death scenes it reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Only problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters.But all in all;this movie is really good and very emotional sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to see their other movies in future,and I recommend this to everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 8/10",Positive "OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.

Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.

However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.

I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.

Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.",Negative "This is available on a ""Drive In Double Feature"" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up ""Barracuda"", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the ""young 'uns"" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these ""kindly folk"" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.",Negative "All Dogs Go To Heaven is a movie that I have always liked. When I was a kid, I used to watch this every other day. It is underrated if you look at its IMDb rating and the comments of many people in general. This isn't a bad movie like many say, it is a very good movie. This is good and your kids will probably like it. Even though it's rated G, some parents may find this to be a bit violent. It is actually a pretty dark story, where the dogs are similar to mobsters who are involved in gambling, extortion, and even cold blooded murder. The movie follows a dog named Charlie who had escaped from the pound, is killed by his old friend, goes to heaven, but ends up coming back to earth. Many younger kids watching this movie may feel as though they are watching a big kids movie.

There are some scenes that may scare little kids, but I'm sure they'll do fine. Every time I watch this movie, it reminds me of when I was a little kid. I'm sure everyone has a movie that reminds them of when they were younger, this is the movie that makes me feel that way. The performances from Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise are great, and this is the last movie that a little girl named Judith Barsi was in. Unfortunately, she was killed at a young age, which is a shame because she had so much potential and didn't deserve what happened. Now that I know her story, I can't watch this movie the same way anymore because her voice sounds so sad.

The animation in this movie is great, the voice work is great, and the story is good, but a little bit different from many other kids movies. This was popular at the time of its release, but was over shadowed by Disney's mega popular The Little Mermaid. This is a movie that isn't conceived as well by adults, but if you're a kid, or if you grew up with this movie as a kid, then I'm sure you will enjoy watching it.",Positive "The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.

Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at ""Scripts-R-Us"", where you buy a standard blank ""Monster Movie"" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually ""let's split up"" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly.

What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.

I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...",Negative "Simply put, Oliver! is one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is filled with memorable songs - ""Food Glorious Food"", ""Oliver!"", ""Consider Yourself"" and ""Oom-Pah-Pah"" to name just a few - and equally memorable characters.

The film is a musical adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel and much like the story of Oliver Twist itself, it is a perfect family film. There are some frightening moments - the villain Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed is scary enough on his own - but overall, the film will appeal to children of all ages as well as adults.

The story - which almost everyone is surely familiar with by now - revolves around a little orphan boy named Oliver and his life growing up in London. At first he lives in the workhouse with the rest of his fellow orphans but after daring to question Mr. Bumble, the overseer, he is sold to a family as a servant.

After a series of mishaps and close shaves, he meets the Artful Dodger - superbly played by a young Jack Wild, who gives his all in the role - and through him, the greedy Fagin (Ron Moody), who trains young boys to pick pocket treasures which he keeps for himself.

The film was shot solely in studios and on soundstages at Shepperton Film Studios but this does not translate at all to film. The sets perfectly replicate Victorian London, as do the costumes worn by the characters. A multi-Oscar winner and a massive success on its release, Oliver! is a worthy contender for the best musical all of time and will delight anyone who loves film.",Positive "There's the danger with the critic/philosopher Slavoj Zizek with his film, directed by Sophie Fiennes, which takes together a wonderful amalgam of silent, horror, sci-fi, surreal and other contemporary thrillers together to make his points ofr Freudian comparisons to overload. But in the Pervert's Guide to Cinema he also makes even the more far-reaching points a point of departure from any other analysis I've seen on a collective section of films. While it doesn't cover the expansive territory Scorsese's movie documentaries cover, the same attachments are there, and Zizek has a definite love for all of these ""perverse"" examples and films, primarily the work of Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin and Tarkovsky. Yet one shouldn't go into seeing this- if you can find it that is, I got to see it almost by luck- thinking Zizek will just try and dissect all of the psycho-sexual parts or parts referring it in an obtuse, deranged manner. If anything he opens up one to points that might never be considered otherwise- would one think of three of the Marx brothers as representations of the Id, Super-Ego and Ego (Harpo's example is most dead-on for me).

He's not just one to take on the classics though, he also considers the food for thought in The Matrix and Fight Club- in representations of the split between fantasy and reality and if the matrix needs the energy as much as the energy needs the matrix for the former, and in the attachment of violence in dealing with one's own self as well as ones double in the latter. He even throws in a piece from the pivotal moment in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin becomes Darth Vader, and the implications of shunning away fatherhood under that back mask at the very moment his children's births happens elsewhere. The ideals of fatherhood, male sexuality, the male point of view in turning fantasy into reality (at which point Zizek rightfully points to as the moment of a nightmare's creation), and female subjectivity, are explored perhaps most dead-on with Vertigo. This too goes for a scene that Zizek deconstructs as if it's the Zapruder film, where he dissects the three colliding points of psycho-sexual stance in the 'don't you look at me' scene in Blue Velvet.

Now it would be one thing if Zizek himself went about making these sincere, excited, and somehow plausible points just face on to the camera or mostly in voice-over as Scorsese does. But he goes a step further to accentuate his points of fantasy and reality, and how they overlap, intersect, become one and the same, or spread off more crucially into some netherworld or primordial feeling for some characters (i.e. Lost Highway) by putting himself IN the locations the films take place in. Funniest is first seeing him in the boat ""heading"" towards the same dock Tippi Hedren's boat heads to at the beginning of the Birds; equally funny is as he waters the Blue Velvet lawn he goes on to explain the multi-faceted points of Frank Booth; only one, when he's in Solaris-like territory, does it seem a little cheesy. But Zizek seems to be having a lot of fun with this set-up, and after a while one bypasses the potential crux of this gimmick and Zizek's words come through.

There were some films I of course would've expected, chiefly from Hitchcock and Lynch, but a treat for movie buffs come from seeing two things- the movies that one would never think of seeing in a film about films titled the Pervert's Guide of Cinema (top two for me would be the Disney Pluto cartoon and the exposition on Chaplin's films, albeit with a great note about the power and distinction of 'voice'), and the ones that one hasn't seen yet (i.e. the ventriloquist horror film, Dr. Mabuse, Stalker, among a few others) that inspire immediate feelings of 'wow, I have to see that immediately, no questions asked.' Zizek is a powerful writer with his work, and puts it forward with a clarity that reminds one why we watch movies in the first place, to be entertained, sure, but also to have that actual experience of sitting down and having something up there, as he put it, looking into a toilet. It's probably one of the greatest films about cinema, and in such a splendidly narrow analysis of how Freud works its way into films regarding desire, the Id/Super-Ego/Ego, and of the supernatural in fantasy, that you may never see...unless distribution finally kicks in, if only on the smallest levels.",Positive "This final entry in George Lucas's STAR WARS movies is often regarded as the weakest of the lot. However, this is not to say that it is a totally worthless entry in the series. On the contrary. Sure, it's not as groundbreaking as its predecessors and a bit more slow-going at times, but RETURN OF THE JEDI still offers a lot to warrant the price of admission.

The first third of the movie, where Luke and his friends rescue Han from the palace of Jabba the Hutt, is a classic. Jabba, a truly disgusting blob of bloated flesh who speaks in his own language, not only makes a great villain, but a memorable one, too. It must have been a nightmare to construct this giant puppet, much less give it the spark and life that we see on the finished product. Actually, what also makes this sequence fun is the clever use of puppets for the various members of Jabba's court, including the intimidating, slavering Rancor and scary Sarlaac pit monster. It builds masterfully to its climax and pulls punches all the while.

Things get a little bit slower around the second act, where Luke discovers that he and Leia are related by blood and when we travel to the forest planet of Endor, home of the cuddlesome yet stalwart Ewoks. Most of the complaints about RETURN OF THE JEDI that I've read seem to be centered on these furry creatures, in that they somehow disrupt the tone of the saga. I don't totally agree with that, although this moment is probably played out a bit longer than it should. However, their leader, Wicket (played by Warrick Davis) is a delightfully memorable creation, and watching how they handle the Imperial Troops' technology with their simple, natural weapons provides a nice contrast.

By the time we get to the third act, though, the pace picks up again, as we intercut between the Ewoks battle against the troops, Lando and the Rebel Forces launching an attack against the Empire's all-new half-completed Death Star, and Luke's final showdown with Darth Vader and the Emperor. The latter ties with the Jabba Palace sequence as the highlight of the movie. Mark Hamill flexes his acting chops once again as Luke Skywalker in these scenes, and watching him as a fully matured Jedi Knight makes for an unforgettable performance. Also, as iconic as James Earl Jones' voice as Darth Vader is, he is rivaled only by the shriveled, crone-like Emperor, played with deliciously raspy, frightening evil by Ian McDiarmid. The tension between this trio heightens the excitement of this climactic moment, which is appropriately darkly lit and menacingly underscored.

The STAR WARS movies have always set standards for special effects, and the technical work in RETURN OF THE JEDI can easily hold a candle to its predecessors. The space battle fights are as exhilarating as always, and the speeder bike chase through the forest is a knockout. Of course, given that this movie was made after A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, it probably shouldn't be so surprising that the special effects have reached an even greater level of excellence. The acting is classic STAR WARS fare; Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher all mature and deepen into their roles, and Anthony Daniels provides more hilarious moments as C-3PO. Frank Oz's Yoda only appears in two scenes, but he makes the most of it. And yes, there's also John Williams' music.

All told, while RETURN OF THE JEDI falters a little bit in the middle, the first and third acts deliver in style, making this a rather satisfactory finale to one of the greatest sagas ever.

In 1997, George Lucas re-released the classic STAR WARS in digitally restored (and revamped) ""Special Editions"", which featured added-in effects and/or shots as well as some enhancements. Of the three, RETURN OF THE JEDI appears to have caused the most commotion with STAR WARS fans. Perhaps it can be due to the jarringly out-of-place (albeit funny if you're not so easily offended) ""Jedi Rocks"" musical number in Jabba's Palace, which, although technically amazing, does disrupt the flow of the film. However, I DID like the ending montage scenes where we see victory celebrations occurring on the various planets of the galaxy. This DVD version features yet more tweaking--we get to see more montage finale scenes (notably on Naboo, where we hear what sounds like Jar Jar Binks screaming, ""Wesa free!""), and, in what is probably the most controversial change, Hayden Christensen as the specter of Anakin Skywalker in the closing scenes. Probably due to the intense (and unfair) disdain fans have for his somewhat shaky work in EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES it seems inevitable that fans would put this edition down for that alone. However, if you're watching the STAR WARS saga chronologically (and contemplating about it), chances are you may react a little differently. Nonetheless, it is an issue that fans have raised, so it's probably best to be warned beforehand.

As nice as it would be to have Lucas release the original versions of these three classic films, he nonetheless stands by what he said about these revamps being the ""definitive"" editions of his classic trilogy, and, when viewing the STAR WARS movies altogether as one complete saga (as Lucas intended), it actually makes sense to keep them technically and aurally consistent. The original films will always be engraved in our memories, but these new incarnations are just as much fun, if one can give them a chance.",Positive "This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.",Negative "I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.

As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great.",Positive "... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure.",Positive "In addition to being an extremely fun movie, may I add that the costumes and scenery were wonderful. This kind, fun loving woman had a great deal of money. Unfortunately, she also had two greedy daughters who were anxious to get their hands on her money. This woman was lonely since the death of her husband. He had proposed to her in a theater that was going to be torn down. To prevent that, she bought it. Her daughters were afraid she was throwing away ""their"" money and decided to take action. The character actors in this film were a great plus also. I would give almost anything to have a copy of this film in my video library, but as of yet, it's never been released. Sad.",Positive "First of all, I apologize for my English.

Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.

Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie.

Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie.

I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie.

Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs.

Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...

Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian.

And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).

I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.

Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia.",Negative "Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like ""Lock, Stock..."" or ""Snatch"", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.",Positive "As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.

Someone compared to ""Happy Days"",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than ""Happy Days"" were like the actual '50s,as ""M*A*S*H*"" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.",Negative "This was shown as part of the 59th Edinburgh International Festival, though for reasons best left to the powers that be. A lot seems to have been made of the fact that it's the first Thai language film, made with Thai actors & crew, but directed by a westerner. Needn't have bothered to be honest, as this film is dull, dull, dull. Why hint at something, why shroud an idea in mystery, why subtly invoke a feeling, when you can hammer the point home with terrible voice overs, obvious shots and over the top scenes> Nothing is left to the imagination as time and time again director Spurrier clumsily churns out endless clichés. No hinting, no guessing, it's all up on screen, no need to use our imaginations. Wonder when the 'scary' bit is coming? No you wont, 'cause the soundtrack will get more and more intimidating, rising to a crescendo of ominously. Hell, I'm making up words to describe how bad this is. Wonder whether the conjured demon is real or imaginary? Why tax yourself - it's really is a snake, and yes it's really is biting his crotch, and there's blood splattering everywhere. it's a strange, uneasy film for several reasons. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it's not scary - the jolts are signposted & obvious. It might be a scathing attack on the seedier side of Thailand, yet the director has a sleazy, lubricious style when it comes to showing barely pubescent teens. Maybe it was casting himself as the virginity-taking westerner that planted the seeds of doubt in my head. Or maybe the whole thing was just pants. Uninspired, insipid, repetitive, hackneyed - all candidates for best description, but dull seems most appropriate and honest. It's all been seen before, probably better, often with more thought, rarely with less imagination or flare. Sorry. Thumbs down on every count. Truly dire.",Negative "Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.

Sorry to be so critical.",Negative "I was really surprised with this movie. Going in to the sneak preview, knowing nothing about the movie except for the one trailer I'd seen, I thought it was going to be a Dude Where's My Car kind of crap fest. I was expecting bad sex jokes and farting and a pathetic lead character who will get laid in the end because that's just how movies work. Instead I got a smart, surprisingly original movie about a decent, average guy who just never had sex.

Yes, the film is chock full o' sex jokes and vulgarity and the occasional hey-look-a-nipple!, but it's done much in the spirit of Bad Santa rather than Sorority Boys. All the characters are people you probably know in real life, redeemable friends who are just trying to hook a brother up and live their lives.

I went in thinking this movie was going to be total crap, and I was very surprised. Yea, it's pretty over the top (c'mon, it's a movie about a 40 year old virgin!), but it's very smartly done.

In the end, you're really pulling for this guy to get laid, which says a lot about the movie because honestly, did you really care if Ashton Kutcher found his car or not?",Positive "Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.

It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

My grade 10 out of 10",Positive "I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.",Positive "This review may contain some spoilers.

The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.",Negative "Given how corny these movies are, you gotta figure that they must have had fun making them. The movie focuses on a house that strangely accommodates whomever lives there. The inhabitants were: author Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott (with hair!)), who gets haunted by one of his own creations; Philip Grayson (Peter Cushing), who gets a little too close to a wax statue; John Reid (Christopher Lee), whose daughter's cuteness is apparently a facade; and actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee), on the verge of getting a little too much into character.

""The House That Dripped Blood"" is actually worth seeing (well duh; it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Aside from just being neat, there might be some undertones: it might be calling into question the issue of real horror vs. assumed horror. Like in ""The Shining"", we might ask whether the house/hotel itself holds some memory of past events. And if absolutely nothing else, Ingrid Pitt (as Paul's co-star) is HOT HOT HOT! Around the time that this came out, she also starred in ""Countess Dracula"" and ""The Vampire Lovers"" (also with Peter Cushing). Maybe she - like Barbara Steele - will remain known only as a scream queen, but mark my words: SHE IS A HOT SCREAM QUEEN! I'd like to see Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele co-star in something.

I guess that the only weird scene (so to speak) is where Denholm Elliott is wearing a pink shirt and fluffy jacket. You read that right. What kind of a name is ""Denholm"" anyway? Oh well. A very cool movie.",Positive "We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words.

I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did ""please don't be over"". We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.

My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving",Positive "Five minutes into this movie you realize that you have seen it all before. It is BOILER ROOM. It is THE FIRM. And it is THE DEVILS ADVOCATE. And there are NO new elements here. Except for the all-to-clear Bill Gates-allegory. Conpsiracies are always good stuff for movie-making, but why does it have to be so extreme ? Boiler room is a good movie, because it - for a while at least - seems realistic. In Antitrust everything is wrong. How realistic is it for example that your boss pay an impostor to be your girlfriend in order to make you work harder and control you ? I'd give it 1, but the soundtrack is OK, so 2/10.",Negative "While this movie isn't a classic by any stretch, it is very entertaining as I remember it. I saw it about 15 years ago on HBO and loved the movie. It was written by the same guy that wrote and directed ""Arthur"" and though it isn't as funny as that movie, it does show the potential that Steve Gordon reached with ""Arthur"".",Positive "I can't believe others took such a serious view of all this. God, it was a lot of fun rooting for Hop-a-long Cassidy. It was a great tribute to the Western serials of years ago. It wasn't meant to be a great cinema experience, except it was. So what if there wasn't a big special effects bonanza. It was a fun, tongue in cheek, look at old Western's. Man, relax and enjoy.",Positive "I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!!",Positive "I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood ""professionals"" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.

OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.",Negative "I saw ""Paris Je T'Aime"" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The ""stories"" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.

The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.

I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.

There were only two ""successful"" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.

The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.

The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, ""Paris Je T'Aime"" was an awful cinematic experience.",Negative "I love full house so much that i couldn't live without full house. Why did it end? It upsets a lot of the fan of it. Can we have a Full House II? Oh, come on! But it is better that we have those DVD to help us. But i need those real ones to come up with another new episode. Love, Warmth are filled the house! All the characters are very cute and handsome! Candace Cameron, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Jodie Sweetin, Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, and John Stamos, loooooooove you! DJ, Michelle, Stephanie, Danny, Joey, and Jesse please come back to the screen please! How is Michelle after falling down from a horse? How are Nicky and Alex? Is Joey alone or is he having a wife or at least a girlfriend? Are they still living in the same house? I want to continue the life of full house! and please don't upset me!",Positive "What a pleasant surprise: A Disney DTV (Direct to Video) sequel that's actually GOOD. ""The Lion King 1 1/2"" is a comedy affair that involves everyone's favorite meerkat and warthog, Timon and Pumbaa. It starts out with them watching the original movie and making comments, until Timon complains that ""we're not here yet"". After fighting over the remote, Timon and Pumbaa decide to tell the audience ""their story"". They start the new movie, and the laughs begin.

To be honest, I was losing hope in Disney. Most of their direct-to-video fare has been aggressively awful, with the story lines desperate to cash in on the original. ""1 1/2"" decides to try something different: It tells the original story from a new point of view. Okay, it adds some stuff, like where Timon came from and how he and Pumbaa met, but it's an interesting concept. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella perfectly recapture the bond and friendship that made us love them in the first movie. There's also some neat movie parodies (including one scene that simultaneously spoofs 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' and 'Cool Hand Luke), and the script is filled with funny memorable lines.

Added to the cast are Julie Kavner (""The Simpsons"") as Timon's worry-wart mom, and Jerry Stiller as Timon's slightly crazy Uncle Max. Matthew Broderick shows up as Simba, and his ""teen"" scene reminded me of Ferris Bueller. Everyone does well, especially Robert Guillame (is that how you spell it?) as Rafiki, who exudes more and more Yoda-speak in this movie (Timon comments on this several times).

'The Lion King 1 1/2' is a perfect alternate choice for those of you getting tired of the Shrekification of animation. 10/10",Positive "This is the type of movie where it actually hurts to acknowledge that it really, really sucks. I normally sanctify stuff like this! Early 70's grindhouse flicks with scrumptious sounding titles and a schlocky low-budget atmosphere usually ROCK. ""House of Seven Corpses"" appeared to dispose of even more trumps, since the cast is a gathering of great genre veterans (including John Carradine, John Ireland and Faith Domergue) and the filming locations (the titular house, the graveyard) are obviously very expedient for a gloomy tale of terror. The film opens with its absolute greatest and most hauntingly memorable sequences, though sadly enough they're the only ones that qualify as such. The credits are a splendid montage, complete with freakish color-effects and eerie freeze-frames, illustrating how the titular house received its notorious reputation. The last seven owners were mysteriously murdered here and the credits montage gleefully exhibits their final moments. Someone falls down the balcony screaming, a lady drowns in her bathtub, and another female body hangs dangling from the ceiling and four more macabre tableaux. Needless to say the house is cursed and the awkward behavior of t caretaker Mr. Price (Carradine) only fortify this reputation. In other words, the house forms the ideal turf for the acclaimed director Eric Hartman (John Ireland) to shoot his satanic horror film project. The film-within-film structure is what mainly causes ""House of Seven Corpses"" to be so boring and uneventful. A lot of movie-material is wasted on crew members putting films spools in the camera and dragging around cables or – even worse – Faith Domergue and Charles Macaulay portraying horridly intolerable actor stereotypes. The plot finally gets a little interesting (only a little, mind you) when one of the characters reads some lines from an occult book and accidentally awakes a rotting corpse in the backyard. The asthmatic (judging by the noises he produces) zombie slowly heads for the house and kills the entire movie crew, reminiscent of how the previous seven turned into corpses. After a running time of approximately 60 minutes, the film suddenly turns from humdrum into just plain weird and confusing. I'm still unsure whether the final twist has to do with the concept of reincarnation or just coincidence and all the remaining characters suddenly seem to go undergo vast mental transformations shortly before they die, for some reason. I honestly regret confirming ""House of Seven Corpses"" is a pretty dreadful movie. The locations and scenery are gloomy chilling, but not nearly used to full effect and there's a serious lack of gruesome bloodshed. Numerous low-budgeted 70's gems were stunningly gross, so the lack of financial means is no excuse and the film-within-film murders really don't count. Even the always-reliable veteran stars deliver hammy performances and Harrison's direction is completely uninspired. Not recommended, unless you think the zero cool four-and-a-half minute playing opening credits montage is worth the effort of purchasing a copy.",Negative "Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.

The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.

The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.

Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.",Negative "I watched this film sort of by accident, having bought it as the B side on The Omega Man DVD. The Omega Man was a bit of a disappointment - except for the beginning, which was clearly the inspiration for 28 Days Later, the rest of it is just the stuff of TV movies. But Soylent Green is in a whole other league. I bet this is one of Tarantino's favourites. There are at least 3 scenes in the film that I've never seen anything like before. Heston casually getting into bed with the ""furniture"" while discussing something else completely unrelated! A whole crowd of people being scooped up by a fleet of mechanical diggers! A priest taking confession and being shot by the confessor. Ok maybe that's been done since - but there aren't many films that are so consistently original like this. And what the heck is going on between Heston and Edward G. Robinson? Is this the most unlikely gay couple ever, or what? Luckily, I saw this film without knowing the ending - which apparently is rare. Then I watched it again, and enjoyed all the little clues that make the long early scenes worthwhile. A very nice script - and some great sets too. Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . .",Positive "Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL!",Positive "Some people have stated that as of the 11th season, South Park has started a trend of leaving behind their politically biting satire for shallow spoofs; but this could not be further from the truth.

While this episode does spoof the Living Dead series, there is more. It is a satire of how people treat the homeless. Characters say things like ""They're pretending to be just like us"" or ""They want to be human."" This episode attacks a culture of people who ignore the lower class who are often just down on their luck.

So yes, it is still a satire, and also a wonderful spoof. What more could you want?",Positive "I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.

Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.

This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.

My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.

But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing.",Positive "When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed ""The ultimate vampire horror"". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The ""story"" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.

Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap.",Negative "This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.

Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.

Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.

The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.

My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired.",Positive "Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...

A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.)

On to the allegedly ""random"" monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking ""hey maybe these guys can help me?"" which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to ""salvation"". Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here.

Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the ""conference entrance"", he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because ""he's Kevin Finnerty"". He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.

After reading all the theories on ""inFinnerty"", though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out.",Positive "When I was a kid, I totally loved both Bill & Ted Movies. The other night, Bogus Journey was on and since it was at least 5 years since I last saw it, I decided to tune in. AND I LOVED IT ALL OVER AGAIN! This film is still funny after all those years. 'Excellent Adventure' is better, but this one rocks just the same. Sure, some of the perfomances are a bit cheesy, but hey, this entire film is cheesy in a cool way. Plus it features the coolest personation of Death ever in a movie! Concluding: Totally like non bogus movie dude! Way Excellent! STATION!!!",Positive "Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic "" Rope"":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

""Murder by numbers "" does not take place in a single room,like ""the rope"" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in ""primal fear"" .

Well,you know ,"" Rope"" was so good ....",Negative "What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.

Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote ""for Sam and Arthur"" in its smoldering ashes.

The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, ""Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough.""",Negative "Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...",Negative "Wonderland is the fascinating film chronicling the x-rated film star John C. Holmes involvement in the brutal Wonderland murders.

The movie's promotion misleads one into thinking this a romanticized portrayal of the porn industry in the vein of Boogie Nights and that is not the case here.In fact,except for a few references made by newscasters that John Holmes is a porn star and a brief montage of real-life footage of John Holmes this film is strictly drama about a fallen celebrity's involvement with murder and how it happened.

Despite being mislead the film is actually engaging.The acting from all the cast is excellent and I'd like to say that Val Kilmer is amazing in his ability to get down all the mannerisms of John Holmes.I was completely convinced that I was watching what John C. Holmes probably looked and acted like in real life.

If you are a John C. Holmes fan or like stories about Hollywood then I think you will enjoy watching Wonderland.",Positive "Mina Kumari exhibits more style and grace just moving from standing, to sitting on the floor than you can find in most other movies. The director has produced more memorable scenes of touching beauty than it would seem possible. The music and dancing is of the highest possible quality. You may notice in the first dance scene the director has all sorts of things occurring in the background:other girl dancing, a drunk falling down stairs, much activity, but he knew that we would be watching Mina dance and I'll bet unless you viewed this many times, you didn't notice.All in all, perfection.J.Q.",Positive "Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.",Negative "I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.

Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no.",Positive "As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a ""Neurological drama"" ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.

It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.

No small feat for such a sort of a ""movie"".

The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!",Negative "I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. ""PAINFUL"" is the best word I can think of to describe it.

On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.

Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.",Negative "I liked this movie very much because it is a true story set in the Amazon, a part of the world that always has intrigued me. I believe a condensed form of the book was published in ""Reader's Digest"" soon after the actual event occurred.

Because I am a ""baby boomer,"" the character and the actress are my contemporaries, and for this reason I related to the film. I also believe the movie is valuable for teaching survival skills if the viewer observes the character's following the streams that lead to the river and to the coastal settlements where she can get help, as well as other survival techniques. Most important was her will to survive and to maintain a positive attitude. In conclusion, I hope viewers learn something from it, in addition seeing it for entertainment.

I do wish the movie would be released in VHS and DVD soon as I should like to add it to my video collection. It also should be shown more often on the satellite movie channels.",Positive "Add Paulie the parrot to beloved movie animal characters. This movie is a love story - bird and Gena Rowlands, Bird and beloved Marie, Michael and Marie. A Russian janitor helps a talking and thinking parrot find his rightful owner many years after Marie's parents sell him to a pawn shop. Before the heart warming ending we learn all the misadventures of Paulie. Cheech Marin and his dancing parrots are marvelous. Beautiful photography throughout. Great little movie, word of mouth will make it a cult favorite.",Positive "I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.

There are probably less than 60 seconds of ""blob footage"" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?",Negative """Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow"" was one of the many '50s movies about hot-rodding teens encountering the supernatural. In this case, the teens can't pay the rent for their hangout and get evicted. With nowhere else to go, they decide on an apparently haunted house. As you may have guessed, once they arrive, some weird things start happening. And there's a twist at the end.

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't seen in other movies, but it's nice entertainment nonetheless. My favorite character was the foul-mouthed parrot. Well, let me rephrase that: he didn't talk like a character in a Quentin Tarantino movie, but he said things that we don't expect out of a bird. The movie's pure hokum, but harmless.",Negative "Of course, he did have to INVENT EVERYTHING about cinematography, film directing, etc. before he could make classics like ""The Gardner,"" so I suppose he may be forgiven this initial excursion into mere sociological documentary. Today we call them ""home movies,"" and they are just as boring now as this one is",Positive "I cannot comment on this film without discussing its significance to me personally. As a child bad health prevented me from ever going to a cinema. I first encountered movies at the end of WWII through Roger Manvilles splendid Penguin book ""Film"", which brought me so much pleasure as my health began to improve that I wish I could buy another copy to re-read today. My introduction to many classics films such as The Battleship Potemkin, Drifters (Grierson's magnificent documentary), Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and Ecstasy; came first through this book and later at my University Art-house cinema. Ecstasy had incurred the wrath of the Vatican, for condoning Eva's desertion of Emil, her subsequent divorce, and the brief swim she took in the buff, but Roger Manville ignored these trivial matters and discussed the film as a triumphant, outstandingly beautiful, visual paean to love - a view echoed by many IMDb users. A very lonely young man, when I saw it, I willingly concurred. No further opportunity to see Ecstasy arose until the introduction of home videos - by then it had become a treasured memory not to be disturbed. Quite recently I finally added Ecstasy to my home video collection and found this assessment very superficial. Ecstasy is much more of a parable on the continuity of human existence, against which individual lives are insignificant - perhaps a tribute to what Bernard Shaw in his aggressively agnostic writings used to term 'The Lifeforce'.

Ecstasy portrays a young bride marrying a middle aged man whose sex urge is no longer strong. Disappointed, she returns home and divorces him. Soon after she experiences a strong mutual attraction to a young virile man she meets whilst out horse riding. She makes love for the first time and it is an overwhelming experience. Her former husband cannot face rejection and gives the young man a lift in his car intending that a passing train will kill them both on a level crossing. But the train stops in time and the apparently ill driver is taken to recuperate at a nearby hotel where he later commits suicide by shooting himself. After these exciting climacteric sequences, a bland, predictable and almost inevitable ending emphasises that whilst individual human lives exhibit both joy and tragedy, collectively life continues to carry us all forward in its stream and only through contributing to this stream can we be truly happy. This story is trite, the acting is no more than adequate; and normally such a film would have disappeared into the garbage, as did most of its contemporaries, long ago. What has given Ecstasy its classic status is exceptional cinematography, a continuous lyrical score and very careful loving direction, coupled with something fortuitous but in cinematographic terms very important - it appeared just after the introduction of sound and was probably planned as a silent film. It is sub-titled and its Director has exploited the impact of brief verbal sequences accompanying some sub-titles, and occasionally breaking into the score which so lovingly carries the film forward. This makes it not only almost unique but extremely rewarding to watch. The parable in the tale is stressed continuously but so subtly that only when reflecting after viewing does one become fully aware of it. For example, the names - Eva and Adam; the obsessive behavior of Emil on his wedding night which shows that triviata have become the most important thing in his life and predicate his eventual suicide since he has no adequate purpose to sustain him; the ongoing series of beautiful sequences showing erotic imagery (a bee pollinating a flower, a key entering a lock, a breaking necklace during Eva's virginal lovemaking sequence with Adam, etc.); and the final post-suicide sequences which could have been filmed in many different ways but serve to extol the importance to individuals of performing some type of work that contributes positively to Society, as well as of creating new life to sustain this society after we ourselves pass on.

As a 1933 film I would rate this at 9 - even comparing it with contemporary works I would not reduce this below 8. For me the film will always remain a ""must see"", (although you may feel that my background remarks above indicate some bias in this judgment). Unfortunately in North America contemporary assessments of this film have been distorted by the extreme 1930's reaction to Hedy Kiesler's very brief and relatively unimportant nude scene which she had difficulty living down in Hollywood (some critics, who have clearly not seen such classic films as Hypocrites, Hula, Back to God's Country, Bird of Paradise or some of the early works of D.W. Griffiths and C.B. deMille, have even erroneously referred to this as the first appearance of a nude actress in a feature film). This scene was probably part of the original novel, and the film would have been very little different if the Director had chosen to rewrite it.

Two further thoughts; firstly this is a Czech film, released there in 1933. Its final message about hard work generating positive benefits for society must have seemed very superficial to its viewers when a few years later their country became the first victim of Nazi oppression and was virtually destroyed for at least two generations (I do not remember these sequences being screened just after the war when I first saw this film - were they removed from the copy I saw then?). Secondly for me its main message today is that things of real beauty are often very transitory even though their memory may stay with one for a lifetime. We should all be thankful that today some of them can be captured on camera and viewed again at our convenience.",Positive "Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second.",Positive "I really don't have anything new to add but I just felt like I had to comment on this sack. So here goes:

Atrocious. I'm running through my MST3K DVD collection again and I just watched Hobgoblins for about the 10th time. It's really, really painful but it was next on the list... You can see that there is a tiny kernel of an actual movie buried under all the crap that is ""Hobgoblins"" but it just couldn't get out. Everything about this movie is 4th rate. The story, the acting, the effects, the women, the ""action scenes"", the... ahhhh forget it. I can watch a piece of crap like ""The Bloodwaters of Dr. Z"" (aka ""Zaat"") over and over and over with hardly any ill effects (I like it in fact- btw, it will be on TCM later this month- October, 2009) but ""Hobgoblins"" is a whole 'nother ballgame.

The worst part of it all may be that it's now about 12 hours after the movie ended, I had a good night's sleep, some coffee and some dry toast, my medications, and yet the ersatz ""New Wave"" dance music that Amy, Red Shorts, and Laraine Newman were frolicking to in the living room is STILL RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD. This torment will last for days.

Good luck, won't you?",Negative "I have seen the freebird movie and think its great! its laid back fun, about time the British film industry came through with something entertaining!! its good how the guy who met them at the service station gets mentioned way into the film in the news agents, nice touch. The acting was convincing (i am a biker) they reminded me of some good times i have had in the bike scene. It was good to see the film director getting in on the acting, well done jon ! At the end a new crop gets mentioned, in Ireland is this the foundation for a 2nd film? hope so keep them coming. Great film , well written, realistic characters !",Positive "Director Fred Schepisi(Roxanne) directs this well intentioned, but inferior comedy about Albert Einstein(Matthau) trying to hook his scientific niece(Ryan) up with ordinary guy Tim Robbins in order to get her to relax and enjoy life in the 1950's. To get Ryan to like Robbins, Einstein tries to make Robbins look like a brilliant scientist. The idea is cute, but the film falls flat with corny situations and silly dialogue. Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, and the terrific supporting cast do their best to keep this silly comedy afloat, but are unable to rescue the film. Its unfortunate that so much talent went into producing such a lackluster movie. I would not recommend to anybody unless they are huge fans of Meg Ryan.",Negative "Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.

Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as ""Forrest Gump"" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.

Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying ""I Heart Black People""?

Sunshine: ""Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period.""

Mary Beth: ""I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA."" Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.

Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.

Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take ""Dazed & Confused."" Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.

In ""Dazed"" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.

Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.",Negative "Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel ""The Darling Buds of May"" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****",Negative "Okay I saw the sneak preview of this stupid movie. First off the movie is so posed and not real, they are all acting. They can't sing. They are way too full of themselves. Its awful. Yes kids like 8 to 10 might enjoy but its really stupid. I mean they say their manager is a kid. And there record label is fake. Its stupid. Don't see it.

As for the set up and directing, not so bad. It is a cute documentary but it documents a stupid thing.

Only see this if you don't really like good music. Also, it's very corny. It's not even tasteful. I hate to be so mean...but this really is a piece of junk.",Negative "When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.",Negative "Spoilers

Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.

Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.

That's it.

I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide ""what the heck, who needs earth anyway?"" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.

Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever.",Negative "Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.",Negative "It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named ""Tree"" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me – it really doesn't matter anyway.

Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word ""turgid"" to describe this made for TV snoozer – and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.

I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",Negative "I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in ""notting hills"" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski ""three colors : white""... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw ""before sunset"" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw ""before sunrise"" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France",Positive "Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.

The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care.

Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.",Negative "Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie ""san pedro, California"" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach ""Queen Mary"" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor",Positive """A Town Called Hell"" (aka ""A Town Called Bastard""), a British/Spanish co-production, was made on the heels of Clint Eastwood's success in the Italian made ""Man With No Name"" trilogy. The template used in most of these films was to hire recognizable American actors, whose careers were largely in decline and dub their voices. This film is no exception except for the fact that they used some British actors as well.

It's difficult to summarize the plot, but here goes. The story opens with rebels or whatever, led by Robert Shaw and Marin Landau raiding a church and killing everyone inside, including the priest. Fast forward to the subject town a few years later where the Shaw character is masquerading as a priest. The mayor of the town (Telly Savalas) is a brutal leader who thinks nothing of meting out justice with his gun.

Throw into the mix a grieving widow Alvira (Stella Stevens) who is searching for her husband's killer. Add to this the fact that she rides around in a hearse lying dead like in a coffin for God knows why. After the mayor is murdered by his henchman La Bomba (Al Lettieri) the town is invaded by a federale Colonel (Landau) in search of a rebel leader (I'm sorry but the name escapes me). The Colonel takes over the town and begins summarily executing the townsfolk to force them to reveal the identity of the leader.

Even though they opened the film side by side, its difficult to tell from the dialog that the Landau and Shaw characters know each other. A blind man (Fernando Rey) claims he can identify the rebel leader by touching his face. He does so and..............................................

I'm sure the principals regretted making this film. It's just plain awful and well deserving of my dreaded ""1"" rating. Shaw spends most of the film fixating his trademark stare at whomever is handy. Even Landau can't salvage this film. The beautiful Ms. Stevens is totally wasted here too. Having just made Peckinpah's ""The Ballad of Cable Hogue"" the previous year, I found it odd that she would appear in this mess of a movie. Savalas made several of these pictures, (""Pancho Villa"" and ""Horror Express"" come to mind) during he pre-Kojak period.Michael Craig is also in it somewhere as a character called ""Paco"".

Fernando Rey appeared in many of these ""westerns"" although he would emerge to play the villain in the two ""French Connection"" films. Al Lettieri would also emerge with a role in ""The Godfather"" (1972) and go on to other memorable roles before his untimely death in 1975.

In all fairness, the version I watched ran only 88 minutes rather than the longer running times of 95 or 97 minutes listed on IMDb, however I can't see where an extra 7 or 8 minutes would make much difference.

Avoid this one.",Negative "Excellent story about teenagers, leaders, high school football ""stars"". How far will you go to protect your friends? Lie, kill? How much can You lose if you stud by an innocent girl? Can love beat the odds? Can you defeat narrow-minded small town people? When your friend scores and you ""lose"", will you do everything in your power to make her pay for it, or will you be a man about it, and respect her right to chose? Will you rape her and show it as your victory over a ""problem"" girl? Can you stand by the one who's only sin is to have an opinion of her own, to be able to make her own decisions, to chose for herself? It made me think twice before giving my judgment about who was right and who was wrong, but one is for sure - very disturbing movie and theme in general. Thumb up!",Positive "Reviewed at the Sept 12, 2006 2nd screening at the Paramount 1 theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival. The film had World Premiered the day before at the Elgin Theatre VISA Screening Room.

The basic plot involves Morgan Freeman playing a one time popular actor who is on the downward slope of his career and who is taking on roles that may be beneath him, but which he still does with a positive attitude knowing that he needs to pay the rent etc. The downward slope is indicated by his being a long time between roles with previous flicks in bargain DVD bins and his being chauffeured by a not too sure of himself production assistant who drops Freeman off at a local community market where he is going to do research for a role as supermarket manager. He soon discovers the real-life market is run by a iron-willed ""10 Items or Less"" checkout line clerk played by Paz Vega. When Freeman's ride never returns and Vega needs help in prepping for an interview the circumstances cause them to join forces in a ride across town to get Freeman back home and to get Vega a job that'll get her on a more upwardly mobile career path.

While the film was enjoyable, it felt like it was still a sketch or a work in progress. There were two extended musical sequences (One with Vega & Freeman teaching each other children's songs in the car, one that literally plays like a Paul Simon music video) that felt like padding to bring up the time and even then the film was only about 80 minutes long.

It's a good thing Morgan Freeman is as well liked as he is because without him this would have been too little. Sure it was funny in parts and Paz Vega is a delight as well, but there was just not enough here to say it was a complete film.

They lost me when Morgan Freeman started talking about stopping the car to ask for directions and Paz Vega said she never does that. Who ever heard of a guy wanting to ask for directions and the woman saying no!? In the real world it's the exact opposite.

Make sure you stay for the outtakes in the credits. The bit with a Target Store saleslady teaching Morgan Freeman how to hustle sales is just hilarious! An early bit where Freeman's chauffeur insists it is Freeman's voice on a ""Books on Tape"" reading was also pretty funny.

The director/writer Brad Silberling and actress Paz Vega were there for a brief Q&A after the screening. Silberling answered one question saying that the script was not written specifically for Morgan Freeman and that once Freeman took the role he actually changed very little of what was there. Quite a compliment for both Silberling's writing and also about how Freeman can just slip into a role and make it feel entirely like he was born to play it.",Positive "We tend to forget that the master/slave context of the past centuries lead to more than well-tended estates, powered by large groups of enslaved people, and a lot of money for the white owners. It lead to a group of people caught in the middle - the offspring resulting from slave owners interferring with their female slaves.

Some of these children just became more slaves, and others were free...but free and coloured, which back then meant anything but, relative to the lot of their sires.

A class formed around these offspring - the gens de couleur libre or free people of colour - and that class was able, to a certain extent, to own property, raise themselves from downtrodden to educated, and to attain a comparative dignity. That is to say, they weren't slaves, but they were still exploited to a certain extent.

Often, the women lived as mistresses to the white plantation masters and men of wealth, set up in their own houses, with allowances, schooling paid for for their children, and a kind of gentility, dependent on the respectability they chose to impose on their families. In essence, they were prostituting themselves to ensure their own prosperity, and relative independence from labour - an arrangement called plaçage.

Feast of All Saints is a beautifully written story about the children of one such woman, the result of just such an arrangement with a local gentleman, and the people who touched on their lives, in both a negative and a positive way. The tale was an eye-opener for me, a New Zealander, with no real conception of the black/white lines, let alone that grey area in the middle where the gens de couleur libre trod gingerly.

The characters are very three dimensional, and have been well-rendered in this adaption of the novel, by Anne Rice. The parts are well-cast, the costumes are wonderful, and the brutal way the lines are drawn out, with the blurred areas made all the more distinct by the conflicts the protagonists go through. The gens de couleur libre could not marry the whites, the slaves could not help themselves, and the whites, even the sympathetic ones, couldn't bear to face the economic reality of doing right by the people they depended on.

I recommend this story, both the novel and the miniseries, to everyone, unreservedly. If you can't handle the truth you'll cringe and cower through some parts, as one injustice after another is meted out on those of colour, both by their white oppressors, and by their own people. Bear in mind though that this is nothing more than reality, and this tale is an absorbing way to learn about it.

I know it may sound callous, but this miniseries both entertained me and enthralled me, despite the sour taste I found in my mouth at what went on, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Watch it. If not read up on the period, because there's a lesson to be learned from it all.",Positive "Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.

For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.

Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.

I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.",Negative "Story of a good-for-nothing poet and a sidekick singer who puts his words to music. Director Danny Boyle has lost none of his predilection for raking in the gutter of humanity for characters but he has lost, in this film, the edge for creating inspiring and funny films. Strumpet is painful to watch and barely justified by the fact that it was made for TV.",Negative "Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!",Positive "Liongate has yet to prove itself. Every single movie from lionsgate has been abysmal. i've tried and tried to give them more opportunities and they just keep slapping me over and over again. And Cabin Fever is definitely no exception.

I couldn't even pay attention to most of this movie it was so frustrating and bad.

here's the plot. Guy cuts up dead dog for some reason. Gets infected by random virus, transfers it to kids at a camp, kids start to get infected and die, town finds out about it and rather than help them, kills them. then the water is infected and everyone dies. the end.

Seriously, that's the whole movie.

all the characters are completely retarded, you don't care for any of them, and the one kid should have stuck with boy meets world. Me and my friend found that talking about how fat and bitchy our one classmate was to be far more enjoyable than paying attention to this movie. We did manage to make it all the way to the end while screaming bulls$@t, because this film will make you do that.

and i'm still confused by the random slow motion karate moves of the one random kid and how apparently everybody out in the country is completely retarded and hickish. And again, why did this dog attack the girl? why did the kid the hicks were trying to kill sit in a chair waiting for them to kill him? that was part of the two of their's plan? wow. best plan ever. i cannot believe this movie got a theatrical release. i could barely stomach the DVD, let alone have to sit in a theater not moving for an hour and a half. It wasn't scary, or funny, or cool, or anything. it's just a waste of 90 minutes that you could be using to...i don't know, plant a tree or something. it's more productive than this piece of garbage. The acting, special effects, and script are a joke. don't ever pick this up.

Cabin fever gets one nasty leg shaving scene, out of 10",Negative "What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.

Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.

Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.

The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up.

""Red Eye"" is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, ""Red Eye"" might be your ticket.",Positive "An hilariously accurate caricature of trying to sell a script. Documentary hits all the beats, plot points, character arcs, seductions, moments of elation and disappointments and the allure but insane prospect of selling a script or getting an agent in Hollywood;and all the fleeting, fantasy-realizing but ultimately empty rites of passage attendant to being socialized into ""the system."" Hotz and Rice capture the moment of thinking you're finally a player, only to find that what goes up comes down fast and in a blind-siding fashion;that for inexplicable reasons, Hollywood has moved on and left you checking your heart, your dreams, and your pockets. Pitch is a must-see for students in film school to taste the mind and ego-bashing gantlet that is, for most, the road that must be traveled to sell oneself and one's projects in Hollywood. If your teacher or guru has never been there, they can't tell you what you need to prepare for this gantlet. To enter the""biz,"" talent is necessary but far from sufficient",Positive "I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like ""Dead Again"", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not ""Tender Mercies"", but ""The Great Santini"". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.",Negative "This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.

The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the ""golden age"" of musicals, go and see ""Singing in the Rain"".",Negative "By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.

It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.

This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.",Negative "It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.

And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?

I see that this movie was made in ""only"" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.

What a waste!",Negative "A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's ""The Tenant"" (released a year before ""The sentinel""), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. ""The tenant"" was so disturbing, whereas ""The sentinel"" is not at all.

What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).

Verdict: barely entertaining.

*My rate: 4/10",Negative "The only reason I saw ""Shakedown"" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic ""spiritual leader"", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2)",Negative "On this 4th of July weekend it's heartening to see the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive and well in the film ""War, Inc."" Just as our founding fathers gave the back of their collective hand to King George III, this film exposes in hilarious fashion the craven war-profiteering by the current crop of capitalistic creeps who are intent on indecently privatizing the government, to include privatizing war itself.

The cast in this satire absolutely shines. John Cusack is wonderful as a droll, conflicted corporate assassin, and the beautiful Marisa Tomei is superb as his love interest. (My gosh, ""George Costanza"" was right. Marisa Tomei is so attractive!) But it is John's sister Joan Cusack who really steals the film. Her portrayal of a bossy, yet simultaneously sycophantic, personal assistant is priceless, and more than once I just couldn't stop laughing at the brilliance of her performance. She not only possesses fantastic comic timing, her face is as expressive as one could ever wish for in an actor. Dan Ackroyd, too, has a short, but very effective, cameo in the film as the head of the company which is running the war, the Tamerlane Corporation. Sitting on a ""throne"" with his pants down around his ankles, Ackroyd even looks like the arse clown who currently occupies one of our real thrones of power. You won't have to think too hard to recognize that person. Much of this movie was filmed in Bulgaria, which is why we are able to see so much real military equipment. (You just know that the US military would never have cooperated in making this satiric expose of war-profiteering.) I especially enjoyed the character of ""Omar Sharif"" as played by the Bulgarian actor Lyubomir Neikov. In one scene in which he is on the dance floor with Marisa Tomei he has a couple of lines that could summarize our entire foreign policy attitude toward the foreign leaders we install - and uninstall - in power.

Naturally, this film won't appeal to everyone. If you believe that the on-going privatization of our foreign policy, the military, intelligence collection and analysis, prisons and the corrections system, public health, and a myriad of other government services is a good thing you may not find much to like in this film. If you believe, however, that destroying people and countries in order to add to some corporation's bottom line is an abomination I think you'll find much to appreciate in this film. Nothing could be more in keeping with the Spirit of Independence that heaping well-deserved ridicule on corrupt powers that be.",Positive """In Cold Blood"", adapted by director Richard Brooks from Truman Capote's famous novel, deals with the brutal and senseless murder of a family of four by a pair of hapless criminals. The film excels as a character study of the killers, particularly trigger-man Perry Smith (Robert Blake).

The cast includes few recognizable names but they nevertheless bring the story to life with ease. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson are excellent together as two criminals with disparate personalities. They play off of each other effortlessly while Blake also gets plenty of opportunities to explore his character's idiosyncrasies. The rest of the cast is merely average and isn't worth remarking on.

Richard Brooks received Oscar nominations for both his script and his direction. In my opinion, both were excellent, though the script does miscalculate with some ill-advised narration in the late stages. The Oscar-nominated cinematography by Conrad Hall is also top-notch, as is the editing. Also worthy of note is the jazzy score by Quincy Jones which secured the last of the film's four Oscar nominations.

Unlike so many other crime films, this one doesn't glamorize violence. Brooks turns the killers into pitiable characters rather than flatly condemning them. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment the film does present an interesting alternative to the usual Hollywood approach. I recommend the film for this reason and also for the expertise with which the technical aspects are handled.",Positive "This movie was just as good as some of the other westerns made by Anthony Mann and James Stewart like Winchester '73 and The Naked Spur, and much better than Thunder Bay and Bend Of The River. This film starts out like a run of the mill western but gets more complex as it goes along. It starts out with Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan arriving in Seattle and Stewart is charged with murder. He is found innocent but is cattle is stolen by a corrupt judge. Stewart then agrees to lead something but i forget what it is but Stewart only cares about getting his cattle back. As the movie goes along it's like Stewart only cares about himself just like his character in the Naked Spur. It gets much better at the halfway point after they arrive in Alaska. This is one of Stewart's better westerns.",Positive "The one of the most remarkable sci-fi movies of the millennium. Not only a movie but an incredible future vision, this movie establishes a new standard of s/f movies. hail and kill!",Positive "A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.",Negative "The first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. ""Pulp Fiction"" was robbed for ""Best Picture."" This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is ""slow.""",Negative "This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.

I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.

Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.

The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.

If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground… keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed.",Negative "It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of ""humor"", but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.",Negative "This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.",Positive "If you are looking for a definitive biography of the life of boxer James Corbett, then this is probably not the film for you. The famed boxer receives a 1940s ""Hollywood-ization"" of his life--making the story far more entertaining and engaging than real life. However, because the performances were so good (particularly by Errol Flynn) and the script so likable, the film's embellishments can be forgiven.

Errol Flynn plays Gay Nineties-era boxer James ""Gentleman Jim"" Corbett--a man who became world boxing champ in 1892. The film goes from his rather humble beginnings and follows his through his career through him winning the title match against John L. Sullivan. However, while it could have focused mostly on the matches, most are rather brief in the film (except for the final title match) and the emphasis is on Corbett's brash personality as well as his relationship with the lady played by Alexis Smith. Throughout the film, there is excellent supporting work done by a cast of wonderful supporting actors (such as the perennial supporting actor in Flynn films, Alan Hale) and the writing really helped bring these people alive.

What is particularly nice about the film is seeing the athleticism of Flynn as a boxer. While a few of the shots are of doubles, almost all the boxing scenes are of Flynn and he did a convincing job as a pugilist. This was a nice departure for Flynn, who generally played ""pretty boy"" roles or swashbucklers and this shows just how tough a character he was. To find out more about this, try reading a biography of him--he was quite the rough and tumble character before coming to Hollywood.

Now as for the REAL James Corbett, read on if you aren't afraid of finding out how the movie isn't accurate. First, Corbett was NOT a poor guy coming from a poor family, but was college educated and bright. Second, while he DID get Alexis Smith at the end of the film, they also divorced a few years later. Third, the wonderfully touching final scene of the film between Sullivan and Corbett was probably the best part of the film, Sullivan was a jerk and this never could have happened--in reality, Sullivan was more the egomaniac and Corbett was not the fat-headed guy they portrayed in the film--though it made for a lovely film.",Positive "Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.

In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.

In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.

People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.",Negative "while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the ""spoilers"" explanation, ""'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film."" well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...",Negative "I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.

Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....",Negative "An excellent movie and great example of how scary a movie can be without really showing the viewer anything. It's a set of four stories all revolving around the tenants of a charmingly old-fashioned house and their various gruesome and horrific fates, all tied together by a wrap-around story about a Scotland Yard inspector searching for a missing horror film star. It starts out with a story about a mystery writer whose main character becomes a little too realistic, followed by a story about two old romantic rivals who become obsessed over a wax figure in a museum, then a story about a sweetly angelic little child who is anything but, and closing with the story of what happened to the missing film star…and what he does to the inspector. It's a gorgeous print that lets you really appreciate the work of director Duffell and what he was able to accomplish with a very small budget. Add to that the acting talents of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Joss Ackland, Ingrid Pitt and Jon Pertwee and you've got a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. Just don't answer the phone if anyone from Stoker Real Estate calls to offer you a bargain on a beautiful house in the English countryside…",Positive "Of life in (some) colleges. Of course there were artistic licenses taken, but some of what you saw in this film go on in some colleges.

I went to colleges in Southern California where the races pretty much hang around with their own. It's funny because these are schools that want racial unity, equality etc. and I can honestly say, that it's there. But the thing is when class lets out, or when they're just hanging out waiting for class, they (students) seem to just hang around with people of their own race or ethnicity. Is that bad? Not really. Everyone needs a feeling of belonging. But like the school paper of one of the schools I attended once wrote about that, ""we should all try to hang around with students of other ethnicities and try to know them."" Otherwise you're creating your own segregation.

Racism certainly existed in one of those schools I attended. One time someone put leaflets around campus talking about the glories of the Aryan Race and had the symbols of some of those racist organizations. Fortunately, nothing happened like the incident in the movie where the young Caucasian man went off and started shooting at a multiculturalism gathering.

I can only hope and pray that nothing like that ever will happen.

So is ""Higher Learning"" overly dramatic? Exaggerated? Maybe. Is it way ""off mark?"" It depends on where you went to or go to school. The race thing where the ethnicities just hang around with their own DOES happen. Minus the Hollywood exaggerations, the race thing hit pretty close to home for me.",Positive "Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!",Positive "When the US entered World War I, the government forced Hollywood to churn out propaganda films. THE LITTLE American is probably the best of the lot because it stars Mary Pickford.

Pickford plays a young woman torn between two men: Jack Holt (German) and Raymond Hatton (French), but her decision is delayed because of the war as both men enlist.

When the ship Pickford is sailing on is sunk by the Germans (think Lusitania) because it is carrying munitions, Pickford has a great scene as she stands on the lifeboat and yells at the German commander. Later on, of course, she runs into both Holt and Hatton when she is being held as a war prisoner at a château.

Director Cecil B. DeMille provides one truly great scene in this film as Pickford and Holt are wandering through a bombed-out village. They pass a destroyed church of which only one wall remains standing. Against the wall is a very large crucifix. As they stand and watch, the wall collapses but the Jesus figure remains, suspended in mid air. It's a very surreal moment in a film that is otherwise very straightforward and un-artsy.

Pickford is, as always, a pleasure to watch. She was always a very natural actress who avoided the arm-waving histrionics many other actors of the day used. She's also very very pretty. Holt is very good here in a leading-man role. Hatton is OK. Among the list of name actors in ""extra"" parts are Wallace Beery, Ramon Novarro, Colleen Moore, Ben Alexander, Hobart Bosworth, Norman Kerry, Walter Long, James Neill, and Edythe Chapman.

Not a great film, but interesting to see US propaganda at work.",Positive """Three Daring Daughters"" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the ""its just a movie"" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married?

Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.",Negative "Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes ""Show Girls"" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.",Negative "Oliver Hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see Ollie's new wife and baby. The problem is, they don't exist--Ollie apparently made them up! So, it's up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family.

This isn't a particularly unique story idea, as I've seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. The best of these was Bobby Vernon's DON'T KID ME. It is much better than ONE TOO MANY--probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later--when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. Now I am not against physical comedy, but in some slapstick films, people starting shooting guns wildly, kick and strangle each other, etc. with little provocation. Sadly, at the end of ONE TOO MANY, that's exactly what they do. None of it makes sense and it was as if they'd just run out of story ideas.

Overall, not exactly a milestone in entertainment. There's just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself.",Negative "This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw ""To Die For"" and ""Drugstore Cowboy"" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.

Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.",Negative "I just want to say that this production is very one sided, breaks the impartiality needed if you want to be taken seriously.

There are no credits of the persons they interviewed, so you cant have an idea if they are worthy of being heard.

Tells the story from just one point of view. To do this is very dangerous, because the next generations learns the bad idea, and thats why wars keep coming. I know this is not the only reason about wars, but doesn't help either.

you can watch this documentary, but read in the internet a lot, before. Balcans are complex as human history is.",Negative "Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every ""Godfather II,"" there are dozens of ""More American Graffiti's,"" ""Stayin' Alives,"" and ""Grease 2's."" While the original ""Grease"" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.

Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.

Reviewers have complained that, because ""Grease 2"" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for ""Our Miss Brooks"" and ""Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour."" The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, ""Grease 2"" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.",Negative "Brokedown Palace is the story of two best friends, Alice and Darlene, who go on a spontaneous trip to Thailand and wind up in prison after being caught with planted drugs in their luggage. In this way, the movie had the potential to turn into a serious and moving film, such as ""Return to Paradise"", but instead, the movie chose to focus little on the girls' situation and more on their friendship.

Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both turn in excellent performances, and the movie is much more about the interplay between them - the suspicion, the jealousy, the questioning and testing of their friendship and ultimately the sacrifices made in the name of friendship. This movie chooses not to delve too deeply into politics or even into the harshness of prison life (which is a bit glossed over), and focuses more on these friendship issues.

There were some plot holes here, and some parts that just didn't seem believable or realistic. We didn't feel the real fear or hopelessness of their situation as well as we might have. And we get very little feeling of life outside the prison walls, with Bill Pullman playing the supposedly sleazy lawyer who actually turns out to have a heart of gold. In short, this should, by all rights, have been a much darker movie than it was.

But overall, I enjoyed it. The acting was good, the soundtrack was perfect, and the storyline had enough twists and turns to stay interesting. Worth seeing.",Positive "This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more.

It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.",Positive "When the film started the first 4 minutes seemed like a travelogue of California, I was wondering if I got the tapes mixed up. Then I breathed a sigh of relief to see Paul Thomas in a scene with the lovely Joanna Storm and Laurie Smith. This is being spied on by Jimmy (a young Tom Byron). Jimmy's aunt (Honey Wilder) is concerned about his behavior so she hires him a private teacher (Kay Parker). I could do without the animal, robot role-playing, or the incest aspects.There's one good sex scene, between Byron and Parker, but it's not good enough to save this film.

My Grade: D+",Negative "Ah WINTER KILLS , based on the novel by Richard Condon which deals with a conspiracy that killed the president of the United States 20 years ago . I knew Condon also wrote THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE which dealt with a similar theme and was looking forward to seeing an intelligent thriller

WINTER KILLS left me cold . It's not a thriller - It's a piece of worthless crap , possibly the worst movie I've seen this month and boy have I seen a lot of bad movies in June . The problem lies in both the direction and the script and seeing as William Richert was responsible for both then he should be blamed entirely for this unfunny farce

There's two things wrong with this movie . First off is the way everything is presented in a totally over the top manner . It's not as OTT as say something like that James Bond movie with David Niven and Peter Sellers but everything has a farcial edge to it with actors completely mugging their performances . This might have been justified if there was entertainment value to the movie but there's none . As a satire it's very silly , so silly that it becomes almost unwatchable . Secondly the scenes seem to have been cut so much that they're rendered senseless . Take for example a scene where the hero is confronting a loopy militia leader called Dawson . Dawson tells the hero he has 30 seconds start then it cuts to the hero being on board a plane . The scenes begin and end with no rhyme nor reason

A dire movie that's an ordeal to sit through",Negative """Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham"" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for ""me and the lads"" to swallow after a few beers.

Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no ""keep it running"" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.

My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.",Positive "What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.

see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back...",Positive "Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar ""nunsploitation"" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.

Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.

With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation.",Positive "Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!

I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).

Basic story line:

Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.

a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic

Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!

The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?

In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum

Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?",Negative "I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most ""normal"" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.

Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.

No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an ""art"" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.

In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star ""nonactor"" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting ""accident"".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.",Negative "Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.",Positive "TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).

Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's ""Where the Heart Is"") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as ""daintily odd"" and raised a querulous eyebrow over ""all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys"". Quite.",Negative "Well this movie was probobly one of the funniest scary movie i have ever seen. The effects are so bad you just have to laugh, and the acting, well lets say its no mel gibson. But Gary Browning who plays an police officer is so damn bad, he becomes good. I dont know how but he him self makes this movie a 10. You must see it if your in to horror/slash movies cause its bloody and funny at the same time. Killer movie.",Positive This is one of the best bond games i have ever played because:

The missions are very very fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be really hard sometimes that makes it even more fun the weapons that you use are really good. The cars in this game are really good the driving missions are fun to do. This James bond game has a good story to it. The voice over actors in this game are really good and it is cool that pierce brosnan is in this game and the way the characters look is really good because they look like what they look like in real life which is really cool. Also the graphics in this game pretty good.

Overall score ********* out of **********,Positive "Over the years, we've seen a lot of preposterous things done by writers when the show just had to go on no matter what, keeping ""8 Simple Rules"" going after John Ritter died comes to mind, but this is probably the first time I cared. The idea of having ""That 70's Show"" without Eric or to a lesser extent Kelso is ridiculous. They tried to cover it up with a comeback of Leo and increasingly outrageous story lines, but it always felt like why bother when you don't have a main character anymore. It just didn't really connect, it was a bunch of unrelated stuff happening that most of the time wasn't even funny. The last season felt like the season too much for every single character, simply because Eric used to take a lot of screen time and now we'd be smashed in the face by how stale and repetitive the rest of the characters were. Focusing on the gimmick that is Fez was thoroughly uninteresting and the character would simply stop working, because the whole deal was that he'd say something weird from out of nowhere, and you can't say stuff from out of nowhere when every second line is yours. They also brought in the standard cousin Oliver, only this time it just wasn't a kid. Whenever you heard somebody knock on the door, you started praying it wasn't Randy, please let it not be Randy. The deal with Randy was that he'd do really awful jokes, usually as Red would say, smiling like an ass and totally screwing up delivery and Donna would be in stitches. I think more than half of the last season was Donna pretending to be amused. The problems had started earlier though: what once was a truly great show with an equally great concept that for once wasn't about a dysfunctional family slowly got into the territory of soap opera. Everybody started being in love with everybody, emotional scenes were dragged out at nausea, with just one usually lame joke placed somewhere to divert attention that we were watching ""As The World Turns"". I'm guessing this was character development, but come on that was written almost as clumsily as the moral lessons from ""Family Matters"". To be fair, the last episode, also because it had a cameo by Topher Grace (a cameo in his own show), was really good, even if not that funny either.

By the way, yet more criticism on Season 8: what the hell was with the opening theme? Not only did they use the same joke twice (a character not singing), Fez scared the hell out of me. Dude, don't open your eyes that far. But the first five seasons or so,among the best comedy ever broadcast.",Positive "I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.",Negative "Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like "" My old Kentucky home"" , and ""Old black Joe"". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected",Positive "One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.",Negative "Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own.",Positive "I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.

One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, ""isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?"" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!

There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.",Negative "One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.

Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.

20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.

Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.

Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).",Negative "I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and ""cute"" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.",Negative "This movie is a true masterpiece, it really is. It's rare you come across such a heartwarming flick, full of fun, laughter, heartbreak, and with a little drama to keep you on your toes.

A true family film, Homeward Bound tells the story of three brave pets, who set out to cross the Rocky Mountains in an attempt to find their owners, following the changes they go through and the obstacles they encounter along the way. One of the truly stunning things about this movie is its ability to give animals human personalities - the voice acting is that good. Shadow is a wonderful character, old, wise and brave, and watching him trying to save Sassy in the river was a very powerfully moving moment. Chance - who wouldn't love a dog like Chance? He's got to be the most mischievous and lovable pup ever shown on the big screen. And Sassy is very witty for a cat - she had me in stitches when she was mocking the keeper; 'Here kitty kitty kitty... not on your life, chubby.'

There were also lots of well made emotional scenes, such as Sassy going over the waterfall (I was truly scared for her), Shadow falling in the ditch (almost in tears) and then the fantastic ending, when all three pets return home... including good old Shadow!

A favourite for all time - anyone who doesn't like this film must just not like animals. Rent it or buy it now, and it'll leave you with happy memories that'll last a lifetime.",Positive "A true classic. Beautifully filmed and acted. Reveals an area of Paris which is alive and filled with comedy and tragedy. Although the area of 'Hotel du Nord' and the Hotel itself still exists, it is not as gay (in the original sense of the word) and joyful as it once must have been. The film makes one yearn for the past, which has been lost, with a sigh and bittersweetness.",Positive "While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.

As for the impressions of the pilot...

The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.

Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the ""feel"" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a ""generic"" Trek story with the themes of ""exploration"" and ""first step towards space"" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series.

The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the ""action"". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of ""the wind"" and being on ""the sea"" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.

We had the feeling more that humans were the ""freshmen"" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!

I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.

I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.

You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.

To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-)",Negative "Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since ""Hey Happy""",Negative "...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)

The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.

If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out ""The Lady Eve"" or ""Sullivan's Travels"" or ""The Miracle of Morgan's Creek"" first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one.",Negative "This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.",Negative "After reading the original play I thought it would have been much more difficult to adapt to screen than it turned out to be. Donal McCann puts in a once-off great performance as Public Gar, the repressed antagonist who is manifested openly on screen by his extroverted (but unseen to others) alterego- Private Gar. Eamonn Kelly also plays an excellent ""screwballs"" whose inability to communicate his feelings is matched only by Gar.

Definitely worth renting out if you can find it. (Probably unavailable outside Ireland & UK)",Positive "This is the moving tale of Scotland's legendary hero, Rob Roy, and his battles with the feudal landowners. Like Braveheart to which it is frequently compared, it is not very historical. Despite their primarily fictional nature, I rate both of these movies highly and would be hard pressed to choose between the two. The 13 Century William Wallace is, as others have noted, a larger than life national figure, while the early 18th Century Rob Roy comes across as an honourable but ordinary Scotsman.

The story revolves around a clan chieftain, Robert Roy McGregor, who lives in a Scottish highland cottage with his wife Mary and their two young sons. As the movie begins, he and his fellow clansmen are hunting down some thieves who have stolen the local lord's cattle. Rob Roy then wishes to improve the living conditions of his people so arranges to borrow one thousand Scottish pounds from a local noble, the Marquis of Montrose, in order to buy cattle to herd to market. He temporarily entrusts this money to his friend, Alan McDonald. When both McDonald and the money turn up missing, Rob Roy finds himself in conflict with Montrose as well as his despicable protégé, Archibald Cunningham, and his sleazy factor, Killearn. Rob Roy's honour is also tested when Montrose seeks to involve him in false testimony against his rival, the Duke of Argyle, whom he wishes to accuse of being a Jacobite.

The charismatic Liam Leeson is brilliant as the kilted highlander Rob Roy, an intelligent, virile, and noble hero and a man whose sense of honour is pivotal to this tale. Personally, I feel that this is Neeson's best performance, his brogue (albeit Irish) adding authenticity for the average viewer. Rob Roy is a stubborn, proud, courageous, and honest man whose word can be trusted. He is a loving husband & father, and also touchingly loyal to his friend, McDonald, who is accused of robbing him.

Tim Roth masterfully portrays his major adversary and surely one of the most heinous and sadistic cinematic villains, Archibald Cunningham, an egotistical, ruthless strutting peacock. He is very effeminate for someone who makes it his major business to ravish the local women, whether willing or otherwise. The pathetic Cunningham himself constantly refers to the fact that he is a bastard unaware of his own father's identity, though this hardly justifies his horrendous misdeeds of murder, rape, and thievery. Also, he mercilessly casts aside the young servant girl, Betty, after she becomes pregnant with his child, resulting in her suicide. John Hurt plays the arrogant and foppish Montrose, who is eventually implied to be Cunningham's father.

The movie is essentially the very believable love story between an ordinary man and his wife, beautifully depicting the passionate relationship between Rob Roy and Mary. Those who question the presence of passion within marriage should watch this husband and wife! I think the phrase used by this pair, 'How fine you are to me...' is surely one of the most beautiful expressions of love in all cinema.

The most compelling performance is possibly by Jessica Lange as Rob's wife, Mary McGregor. Lacking make up, she has the pretty but natural look of a sturdy peasant wife and mother. The actress brings great courage and dignity to her role when she is brutally raped by the despicable Cunningham, while the disgusting Killearn looks on. Her dialogue is plain spoken but filled with pride and grace. I give Hollywood its due that for once they showed just enough in the rape scene to reveal its cruelty as well as Mary's pain and humiliation, but nothing intended to sensationalize. Their kinsman, Alastair McGregor, shows emotional anguish when he learns of Mary's rape, and further torment when she swears him to secrecy never to reveal to her husband her violation by Cunningham.

Of course this film features the beautiful scenery of the Scottish highlands, also lavish period costumes and appropriate musical scoring. There are no grand battle scenes as in Braveheart, but continuous engaging action and a particularly gripping sword fight in the final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham. This is a captivating movie featuring both tense action and a beautiful love tale.",Positive "I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.

You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is ""pulled over"" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - ""Do you know why I am standing here?"" he asks. ""Because you got all C's in high school?"" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.

Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her ""Jesus is Magic"" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that.",Positive "Spoilers

Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s ""Le samurai"" is the original and there are elements of ""Leon"". And they are better - much better!

In the ""Samurai"" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.

Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked ""Leon"" very much or even ""Desperado"" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in ""Leon"")?

So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?

I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.

A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor",Negative "I love this movie because I grew up around harness racing. Pat Boone behind the sulky reminds me of my father who was drawn to the trotters because, unlike thoroughbred jockeys, men of normal height and weight can be drivers.

Yes, the 1944 Home in Indiana is a better movie, but it's also a very different movie. April Love is light and easy to watch, a feel good movie. (Disappointing though that Pat Boone's religious/moral views prohibited him from ever kissing the girl! Quite a change from today's standard fare.) Home in Indiana with Walter Brennan (filmed in black and white with no hint that anyone will ever burst into song) captures the stress and struggle better thereby making the ultimate accomplishment more satisfying but it requires a bigger emotional investment.",Positive "I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, ""grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster"" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.",Negative This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.,Negative "RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films.",Positive "I remember back when I was little when I was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. There was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. Well, when I found Wendigo at the library, I checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. Well, much to my dismay, I was so far from the truth. Wendigo is really bad. The story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin, which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods, and they run into a deer. Well, it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. The movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. It wasn't until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the ""wendigo."" My suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. It will leave you wanting your hour and a half back.",Negative "Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions ""other"" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks ""super"" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the ""bigwigs"" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more ""Batman & Robin"" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to ""reinvent"" the hero for the movie, just to have it ""bomb"" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!!",Positive "Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune ""Arthur's Theme"", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with ""Arthur.""",Positive "This movie has got to be one of the worst I have ever seen make it to DVD!!! The story line might have clicked if the film had more funding and writers that would have cut the nonsense and sickly scenes that I highly caution parents on.... But the story line is like a loose cannon. If there was such a thing as a drive thru movie maker-this one would have sprung from that.It reminded me a lot of the quickie films that were put out in the 1960's, poor script writing and filming.

The only sensible characters in the whole movie was the bartender and beaver. The rest of the film, could have easily been made by middle school children. I give this film a rating of 1 as it is truly awful and left my entire family with a sense of being cheated. My advice-Don't Watch It!!!",Negative "I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.

I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.

Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.

Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.

The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.",Negative "This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be ""cool"" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film.",Negative "Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.

Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.

Nothing original here.

More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably ""talented"" Beyonce draw.

If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).

Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage.",Negative "I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie..",Negative "Thank god ABC picked this up instead of Fox. The best description (for those in the know) is really Wonderfalls meets Dead Like Me in the best way possible.

I'm not sure whether an experience with death and destiny early in life makes me a fan of Brian Fuller but I certainly enjoy his productions. I also enjoy checkered floors, pies, talking toys, gravelings and other mischievous items :) While a bit ""Burtonesque"", I certainly think this enjoys its own niche that doesn't require J Depp or HB Carter to be a wonderfully imaginative playground. Here we can find the joys and sorrows of childhood and adulthood crashing into each and actually making sense and making us want to live life to the fullest!",Positive "This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random ""survival events"" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.

All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.",Negative "One thing is for sure...you should not watch this film if you are having a bad day. The story is based around a sad event and follows a character who has to live with a sin that he cant handle. The story is drip fed to you rather than the usual dumbed down explanation so it keeps you wondering what is going on. Eventually the dots are joined up and the performances make sense. All the characters were OK and Wil Smith did another good day at the office.

There are no doubt a lot of moral questions to be asked but if you just accept and buy into his agony then it is easier to accept what he has chosen to do. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. The journey it takes you on is interesting enough, if not overwhelming.

A good enough film that unfortunately leaves you a little sad at the end. I would recommend this film if you like the sort where you have to think and not just watch explosions and fights.",Positive "A stunning film of high quality.

Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.

An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.

Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.

In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.

Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.

One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.

The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.

And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10.",Positive "I consider Stuart Bliss the worst movie I have ever seen.

The acting was terrible and the plot ludicrous. I get the fact that the main character's wife leaving him triggered a mental breakdown, but it got so silly and boring, after a while I could have cared less about any of the characters.

The movie kept going over and over the same ideas without anything fresh or surprising to add to the plot. The whole thing with the Geiger counter got too much after a while after Stuart started opening up his wall to see what was behind it after the counter indicated something was there.

Then there was the repetitive scenes with the flyer, and the confusing ones where he meets himself.

I should have guessed that this movie was a flop when I didn't recognize any of the actors. Do yourself a favor when this movie comes up, read a book! You'll be better off.",Negative "I'm amazed we see even one nay-sayer criticizing this old film. We don't ordinarily get good opera films, and here is a true grand opera rendition. Understandably, the visuals are not great. It's dated. But as opera it can't be faulted; and I'm an opera buff. I can't even detect one lip-sync; if we didn't know that was Tebaldi in the audio nothing would convince me it isn't Sophia Loren. She does EVERYTHING with flair! Her dark makeup is fine; and she brought the role to gorgeous life! The rest of the cast is wonderful, as is that stunning ballet troupe. Most of the actors are excellent; Loren truly marvelous. Her rival Amneris is also terrific. Whoever didn't care for this 1953 job is shamefully remiss. Verdi would have enjoyed it! Naturally, Renata Tebaldi as Aida is the engine behind the scenes. I love this old movie!",Positive "Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...",Negative Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).

This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel.,Positive "A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.

Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.

The closing lines sum up the ""point"" of the movie: ""Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters.""",Positive "Holy crap this is so hysterical! Why aren't American comedies written like this? For anybody who thinks comedy has to be dumb-- there is more wit and intelligence in the six episodes of this series than in a shelf of novels! Hugh Laurie is a complete hoot. I couldn't believe it was the same guy as House! There are so many great lines and gags in this series you could watch each show dozens of times and still pick up on new things each time. Rowan Atkinson is hilarious as the verbose and put upon butler Edmund. This is my favorite of all the Blackadder series. And Tony Robinson is wonderful as ever as the somewhat obtuse heart of the series, ""the oppressed mass"" Baldrick. Some of my favorite lines: ""When someone messes with a Wellington he really puts his foot in it"" and Baldrick explaining how he got his name and cousin Macadder ""the top kipper salesman"" and homicidal swordsman from Scotland.",Positive