Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

"Silverlake Life" is a documentary and it was plain and straightforward. Actually, it was more like a home movie, and if you want dramatic illuminations, see something else. And it's by no means a tearjerker. But I mean that in positive ways. It shows two men who love each other and how being afflicted with AIDS is affecting the quality of their every-day lives. It's almost difficult for me to say whether this was a quality film or not, because it was so undressed that I had to look for other ways to respond. It's an admirable film, actually one of the most admirable, sincere documents I've ever seen. These two men have incredible integrity as their lives are reduced to the most basic parts. It makes Hollow-wood productions on AIDS seem hip and heartless. These men made this movie for themselves, which is one of the best reasons to create something. The scene where Tom sings "You are My Sunshine" to Mark and tells him goodbye is the real thing.

I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.<br /><br />But, hey, that's the nature of people.<br /><br />Andrew.

"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Grade: C-

I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.<br /><br />The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.<br /><br />Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.<br /><br />Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.

RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.<br /><br />As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.<br /><br />This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.

What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.<br /><br />Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.<br /><br />If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!

My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"!

Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.<br /><br />Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!!

This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.

In the tradition of G-Men, The House On 92nd Street, The Street With No Name, now comes The FBI Story one of those carefully supervised films that showed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the best possible light. While it's 48 year director J. Edgar Hoover was alive, it would be showed in no other kind of light.<br /><br />The book by Don Whitehead that this film is based on is a straight forward history of the bureau from it's founding in 1907 until roughly the time the film The FBI Story came out. It's important sometimes to remember there WAS an FBI before J. Edgar Hoover headed it. Some of that time is covered in the film as well.<br /><br />But Warner Brothers was not making a documentary so to give the FBI flesh and blood the fictional character of John 'Chip' Hardesty was created. Hardesty as played by James Stewart is a career FBI man who graduated law school and rather than go in practice took a job with the bureau in the early twenties.<br /><br />In real life the Bureau was headed by William J. Burns of the Burns Private Detective Agency. It was in fact a grossly political operation then as is showed in the film. Burns was on the periphery of the scandals of the Harding administration. When Hoover was appointed in 1924 to bring professional law enforcement techniques and rigorous standards of competence in, he did just that. <br /><br />Through the Hardesty family which is Stewart and wife Vera Miles we see the history of the FBI unfold. In addition we see a lot of their personal family history which is completely integrated into the FBI's story itself. Stewart and Miles are most assuredly an all American couple. We follow the FBI through some of the cases Stewart is involved with, arresting Ku Klux Klan members, a plot to murder oil rich Indians, bringing down the notorious criminals of the thirties, their involvement with apprehending Nazi sympathizers in World War II and against Communist espionage in the Cold War.<br /><br />There is a kind of prologue portion where Stewart tells a class at the FBI Academy before going into the history of the bureau as it intertwines with his own. That involves a bomb placed on an airline by a son who purchased a lot of life insurance on his mother before the flight. Nick Adams will give you the creeps as the perpetrator and the story is sadly relevant today.<br /><br />Of course if The FBI Story were written and produced today it would reflect something different and not so all American. Still the FBI does have a story to tell and it is by no means a negative one.<br /><br />The FBI Story is not one of Jimmy Stewart's best films, but it's the first one I ever saw with my favorite actor in it so it has a special fondness for me. If the whole FBI were made up Jimmy Stewarts, I'd feel a lot better about it. There's also a good performance by Murray Hamilton as his friend and fellow agent who is killed in a shootout with Baby Face Nelson.<br /><br />Vera Miles didn't just marry Stewart, she in fact married the FBI as the film demonstrates. It's dated mostly, but still has a good and interesting story to tell.

The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.<br /><br />With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.<br /><br />This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.<br /><br />Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made. <br /><br />

I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!

I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it.

The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie.

I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .<br /><br />BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"<br /><br />The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.<br /><br />

I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. "Lola" just wasn't as good in this film as in "Run Lola Run", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And "Lola" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.

I want to say that I went to this movie with my expectations way too high. I thought it was going to be funny because it's the sequel to Bruce Almighty which was really funny and it stars Steve Carell who is an excellent comedic actor but boy, did it sucked.<br /><br />The movie is advertised as a sequel but it really has nothing to do with the original since the only people reprising their roles are Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell but Steve's character is completely different, he is no longer the jerk he was in the first one here he is a nice guy. The story is different and the actors are different and it's not funny.<br /><br />All the actors involved(Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Wanda Sykes, John Goodman, Ed Helms and even Jon Stewart in a very crappy cameo) have talent but none of them seems to use it and it looks that there in the movie just for the money.<br /><br />Now the plot is obviously shaped after Noah's story but there are so many wrong things with it, I don't know where to start. I guess the big problem is that in the everyone around Evan thinks that he is crazy despite all the things that are happening to him, he grows a huge white beard in two days, he gets help from animals from all around the world, he builds a giant arc in a few weeks, in real life people wouldn't be mocking these guy after that, they would be saying he is the new Noah.<br /><br />Also the special effects are good but what the hell is the greatest movie flood ever filmed doing in Evan Almighty? Did they really had to waste such good special effects as filler for this crappy movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey seems to be a smart guy since he has stayed away of three of the worst sequels ever made, Son of the Mask, Dumb and Dumbered and now Evan Almighty.<br /><br />This was a giant disappointment and Tom Shyadac should be ashamed of himself.

Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.

What a fun movie! If you're a Giallo fan, Red Queen Kills 7 Times is a real winner. To begin with, it's hard to go wrong with Barbara Bouchet and Marina Malfatti in the same Giallo. Both are wonderful - especially the wide-eyed innocent Bouchet as the guilt ridden woman fearing for her life. The kill scenes in Red Queen Kills 7 Times are especially nice and feature enough blood to make most fans happy. One of the first murders comes rather unexpectedly and really gets the movie off to a good start. The killer, The Red Queen, is one of the most over-the-top and interesting looking murderers I've seen in an Italian movie. The 70s sets and fashions are wonderful. In fact, all the visuals are interesting with the laughing Red Queen running across the bridge at night being one of my favorite moments in the film. The convoluted plot held my interest throughout. Finally, Bruno Nicolai's score may be the best I've heard from the composer. The main theme is so memorable I haven't been able to get it out of my head for two days.<br /><br />The only two issues I have with Red Queen Kills 7 Times come in the film's finale. First, the person responsible for the murders is far too easy to spot. If you've seen more than a couple Gialli, you won't have any problem determining who is behind the killings. Second, the ending feels a little too rushed and, as a result, is a bit confusing. I'm definitely not one who needs every plot point spelled out to me, but I'll admit to being at a loss to explain it all. A second viewing might just clear this up.

My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.

I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest.

I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.<br /><br />Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.<br /><br />This film is 100% true<br /><br />In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. "Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down." This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.<br /><br />This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.<br /><br />I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented.

i saw this movie on cable, it was really funny, from the stereotype police chief to the stereotype big bad guys, jay leno and mr mayagi from karate kid star in this good comedy about a prototype car part. I compare this movie to "RUSH HOUR" in which a local cop has to partner up with an asian police officer to solve a case. The chase through farmers market in downtown detroit brings back memories. Enjoyable soundtrack, good script, i give it 10/10.

Jack Frost is about a serial killer who is sentenced to death. On the Way to his death sentence the prison truck that he rides in collides with a chemical tanker filled with a chemical that turns his molecules with the snow on the ground turning him into a snowman. Being a killer himself that would turn him into a killer snowman. Jack now wants revenge on the sheriff who caught him. Jack now starts his rampage all over again killing people in a small town.<br /><br />I don't think Jack Frost has a chance of becoming a horror classic but its a entertaining flick. Just put your brain on hold and have fun with it, but just don't take it too seriously.

Gadar is an example of one of Bollywood worst overrated movies ever. Directed by Anil Sharma, who prefers making period related movie gives a rubbish movie. The songs were boring and ain't the kind of song you want to listen to in your car, full volume. Sunny Deol is famous for making daft movies, where he beats up a 100 bad guys on his own. He even kicks a metal jail door (Indian) and kicks a moving car far away (Teesri Aankh). I can give another 50 examples of disgraceful action by Sunny Deol. But I'm sure most people know this already. Sunny gives a pathetic performance once again repeating the same type of role. A guy claiming to be fighting for his countries piece, by using violence. Amisha Patel is hands down dead sexy with an amazing body that i would love to bone. But even she couldn't save the film from being a disaster. Instead of wearing sexy clothes like she usually does, in this movie she doesn't. Maybe cos she was playing a Muslim, but she doesn't act like one in the movie. Overall, this is a poor show all the way, I'm sure it will appeal to some people, who love seeing the Bollywood actor beat up 100 guys. Give me a break.

This film would usually classify as the worst movie production ever. Ever. But in my opinion it is possibly the funniest. The horrifying direction and screenplay makes this film priceless. I bought the movie whilst sifting through the bargain DVD's at my local pound shop. Me and some friends then watched it, admittedly whilst rather drunk. It soon occurred that this wasn't any normal film. Instead a priceless relic of what will probably be James Cahill's last film. At first we were confused and were screaming for the DVD player to be turned off but thankfully in our abnormal state no-one could be bothered. Instead we watched the film right through. At the end we soon realised we had found any wasters dream, something that you can acceptably laugh at for hours, whilst laughing for all the wrong reasons. We soon showed all our other friends and they too agreed, this wasn't a work of abysmal film. This was a film that you can truly wet yourself laughing at. This was a film that anyone can enjoy. This was genius.

I was looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.<br /><br />Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.<br /><br />The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.<br /><br />I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.

I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!

A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clichéd ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts "Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.<br /><br />Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway – a lot of noise about nothing.

I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right? <br /><br />Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.<br /><br />Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.

Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of "Lilies of the Field" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture "In the Heat of the Night" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both "Bullitt" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of "Cape Fear" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in "In the Heat of the Night." He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of "Change of Habit"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of "The Naked Kiss"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of "Hickey and Boggs"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.<br /><br />Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of "The Adventurers"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of "Intruder in the Dust") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of "License to Kill"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of "Nevada Smith") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.<br /><br />Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of "JFK") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of "Penelope"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.<br /><br />Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.<br /><br />The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.<br /><br />Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.<br /><br />Altogether, "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is a poor follow-up to "In the Heat of the Night." Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surprise—and it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivance—is the ending. Donald Medford's "The Organization" followed "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" as the second, more action-packed sequel.

It is first and foremost a chick flick, it is a romantic comedy. There is a fair balance between the two. This particular movie has the addition of some pretty sweet fight scenes, I don't think any wires were used or if they were they weren't flat out blatant. It isn't a terribly complicated movie so it easy on the brain, no need to analyze anything to get the deeper meaning, pretty simple, good chemistry between the leads, and a fun watch. I'd like it if they made brought out the full potential of the girls looks just once cause she can be amazingly cute, but throughout the movie they keep it low key kind of pretty. I'd watch it again...with a girl.

This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.<br /><br />Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.<br /><br />Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.<br /><br />He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get.

The third film based on Charles Belden's play entitled "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (1933) targets generation X-tasy. Twin screenwriters, Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes, spend more time developing the main characters than other slasher movies--a promising start. Their condition guarantees an authentic point of view. The role of Paige (Paris Hilton) was not much of a stretch for the world's favorite heiress. She peruses "In Style," stripteases boys, chats on a cell, and frets over an ill-conceived pregnancy. Her regular routine has been altered beyond repair. Hilton reached the peak of her performance--not so hot--during the "1 Night in Paris" (2004) parody. While the pimp-my-ride is in motion, she zealously "looks for lip balm" in her boyfriend's (Robert Ri'chard) lap. Finally, the "actress" atones for using the "N" word on the sex tape. Director Jaume Collet-Serra molds his take on the twin thing contrary to the theme of the past. Each exhibited opposite characteristics back then, whereas a pair of either good or bad can come out the womb today. However, the latter does not rule out the former. Childbirth constitutes the luck of the draw. Spectators can hardly consider Vincent (Brian Van Holt) a contemporary Quasimodo. Granted, the recluses share some similarities such as artistry, disfigurement, submissiveness, and murder. Yet, one small variable between the two makes all the difference. Vincent is even uglier on the inside than he is on the out. Collet-Serra's "House of Wax" pays homage to actor Vincent Price from the first remake in 1953. The film leaves obvious van Gogh puns to the imagination of the audience. Still, the choice to split the antagonist in two eliminates a vibrant twist at the end. Professor Henry (Vincent Price) Jarrod's unmasking receives runner-up, but the most terrifying one in horror movie history belongs to Lon Chaney in "Phantom of the Opera" (1925). As far as the new contender is concerned, the aftermath of separation surgery downplays the effect. A surgeon should know operating on Siamese twins scars them--physically and psychologically. Their father needs to call a couple colleagues--Dr. Phil to consult and Dr. McNamara to nip/tuck. Despite what the trailers said, "Wax" is not forever. In fact, you can rid yourself of it by burning it.

Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.

Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on "Return of the Jedi" (Don't believe me, check his entry in IMDb!)<br /><br />This has to be the first, and in my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection.<br /><br />Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time.<br /><br />You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll be real happy you did.

Thomas Edison had no other reason to make this film except to show that film can capture the electrocution of an innocent elephant. Edison was not a genius but a man out for money and profit; his love for life was measured by dollars, not experiences, as this film shows.

This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.

Sex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.

This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film.

The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great. <br /><br />Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down. <br /><br />But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba. <br /><br />The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit. <br /><br />Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down. <br /><br />The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.<br /><br />You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.

this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film..

The story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get it.

Darling Lili is fantastic! Its by far one my favorite films! It certainly didn't deserve the poor reviews it received. Julie Andrews, playing the title role of Lili Smith (Schmidt) is the best part of the whole movie. She is entrancing and spectacular! As Julie Andrews is my most favorite actress and singer by far, I was most definatly not surprised by how stunning she is. This movie is just...great (I'm running out of adjectives!), it's magnificent, marvellous, amazing, funny, terribly romantic, sad, and just an all-out thrill and its all thanks to Dame Julie Andrews!And to her husband, director Blake Edwards. Oh, yeah Rock Hudson was ok, too :)<br /><br />Julie Andrews is the beautiful and well-loved singer, Lili Smith. Rock Hudson portrays Major Larabee, who quickly falls for Lili, and she with him. But their affair was not coincedental. There meeting was planned by the German Government (I'm not sure if that's exactly what you'd call them, but you get the point), because the warm, happy, singing entertainer Lili is actually a German Spy. Lili is told to seduce Major LArabee in order to get information of the new Top Secret Opertaion (later know as "Crepe Suzette"). Though Lili is on a solemn mission, she falls in love with Bill (Major Larabee), for real, making her original quest challenging. But Lili pulls through and completes er task, after she finds out something that is not really true about Bill. The ending will remain unsaid by me as it is wonderfully layed out. If anything, you'll thoroughly enjoy this movie, I most certainly did!!!!!!!!<br /><br />

How can there be that many corrupt cops without any one of them slipping up? With enough cops to run a mini-war that include such weapons as flamethrowers, you would think they would have been caught before someone writing for a weekly coupon newspaper overheard someone saying 'thanks' to a corrupt cop.<br /><br />You will never get your 90ish minutes back. Life is too precious to rent this movie.<br /><br />I feel bad for the big named actors that made the mistake of making this movie.<br /><br />If you like Justin Timberlake, feel free to rent this movie. He does have a very major part in it, so fans might enjoy seeing him. <br /><br />However, I believe most of his fans are young girls, who may be turned off by the violence in this movie.

If you want an excellent survey of Byzantine history done in colorful fashion, this is for you. This documentary would also be excellent for educators, who are teaching about Roman, or medieval history. This documentary is divided into three portions, first dealing with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. The second video deals with Byzantine diplomacy and the iconoclastic controversy. The third and final video explains the decline and fall of Byzantium. The series is shot in several countries, and beautifully integrates Byzantine history into the realities of the modern world, showing the place of this civilization as part of human civilization in general. Do, take the time to watch.

Henry Thomas, and Robin Tunny, are a couple of the most underrated performers in the business. It's beyond me as to why they haven't received more recognition than they have. This movie is a perfect example of how boundless their abilities are.<br /><br />Acting out the lives of folks who could be referred to as a bit odd seems to be their speciality, and if these characters ain't odd, I'm at a loss to find anyone who is.<br /><br />The story is funny, romantic, dramatic, complicated, and tragic. I hated the ending, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have loved the story as a whole. So there ya go.

As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do. <br /><br />Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.<br /><br />Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.<br /><br />However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.<br /><br />Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me. <br /><br />As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.

I knew little of this movie when I entered the theatre for an advance screening. I gathered from the ads that it was a thriller.<br /><br />What we have is like "Compulsion" meets "Matlock". Two teens decide to commit a perfect murder. A victim is selected at random and then carefully executed so that no traces of the actual murderers is found. Then a bunch of false leads are planted that point to an innocent bystander. (Innocent of the murder anyway)<br /><br />Enter Sondra Bullock as the investigating officer. (IMDB says that she's FBI, but I don't remember that. I thought that she was a regular cop) She's frustrated by the inconsistency of the killers profile ("The profile doesn't fit the profile!") and by the power and influence of the father of one of the boys.<br /><br />She's also has demons of her own which figure prominently in her decicision to become a cop. But this is the only character that is really more than one-dimensional. All others are pretty flat.<br /><br />For a thriller, there are really no big thrills. It's mostly a cat-and-mouse game like an episode of "Matlock" (which she's watching at one point in the film). The twist is that there are two involved in the killing. Just who is the real murderer, Justin or Richard? It'll cost you eight bucks to find out.

There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. <br /><br />I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).<br /><br />Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.<br /><br />Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.<br /><br />But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line). <br /><br />Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.<br /><br />Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?<br /><br />One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.<br /><br />Thanks, ladies.

Tomorrow Is Another Day is NOT the sequel to Gone with the Wind but a lovers-on-the-lam story, and a surprisingly alert and moving one as well. For a supposed hack relegated to B-minus features like The Devil Thumbs A Ride, Felix Feist proves adept at filling his work with unexpected, inventive details. Steve Cochran leaves prison after 18 years for killing his brutal father when he was only 13, and now he's still a tentative, gawky pubescent operating inside a man's hulky frame. Lonesome, he visits a 10-cents-a-dance palace and falls for brassy, grasping Ruth Roman. But the sudden shooting of her police-bigwig boyfriend causes the ill-matched couple to hit the road, ending, like the Joads, in a California migrant-worker camp. <br /><br />Roman's the revelation; in her best-known role, as Farley Granger's fiancee in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, she was ill- and under-used. Here she modulates persuasively from bottle-blonde taxi dancer to sacrificing wife and mother-to-be (and a brunette, to boot). Cochran's almost as good, waffling between the suspicion of a wounded child and the explosive reactions of an under-socialized male. And the ending, while unconvincing, is nonetheless welcome. Along with They Live By Night and Gun Crazy, Tomorrow Is Another Day displays a redeeming sweetness and warmth that belie its film-noir pedigree.

Mark Frechette stars as Mark, a college radical leftist. Mark is accused of killing a cop during a campus riot, and he flees all the way to the desert. He does so by stealing a small plane at the local airport, and flies it himself. <br /><br />Once out flying over the desert, Mark spots a car from the air. A young woman named Daria steps out, and sees Mark circling in the plane. Mark swoops the plane very low several times, causing Daria to duck or get hit. When he lands, he becomes acquainted with Daria, who is strangely charmed by Mark's aerial highjinks. <br /><br />After engaging in soulful conversation for hours, Mark and Daria get naked, and make love in the sand. But with Mark evading the law, they realize that he needs to keep running. So Mark and Daria's brief tryst is quite poignant, because it doesn't get to develop into a full-blown romance.<br /><br />Zabriski Point was the Eraserhead of the early 70s. Both films have a rambling, vague quality, along with complicated meanings and characters. Frechette was as reckless in person, as his character was in this film. A few years after making Zabriski Point, Frechette robbed a bank in real life. While serving his prison sentence, Mark died an ignoble death. He was killed by a 150 lb. weight, which fell on him when he was weightlifting. <br /><br />The best thing about this movie was the splendid cinematography, and special visual effects. The incredible, slow-motion scenes of debris floating in the air after an explosion, were a stroke of genius. Although not as ground-breaking a film as Easy Rider was, Zabriski Point still resonated with the early 70s counterculture. I recommend it, for those who like avant-guard films which showcase the upheaval, of the youth rebellion during the early 70s.

I am coming out fighting here because this film was so well shot and so well cast that I am twice as angry about its de-evolution than I would have been with a lesser work. Without revealing too much of the plot, I can only say that part one of my 2 VHS set was an unnerving, unfolding delight of bizarre but plausible plot developments. The lead character was suitably naif-like but also intelligent and very very open. The events that he is rapidly forced to come to terms with are the separation of his parents, the culture shock when his Pakistani roots collide with a complete breakdown of English straitlaced society in the sixties, his father's dubious transformation into the revered Buddha of Suburbia, and the turning of his cousin into a feminist militant as his best friend suddenly becomes an icon of the burgeoning punk movement in the seventies. Among other things.<br /><br />What made me so angry was the amount of detailed work each actor put into creating and establishing their characters in the first part, only to have the whole thing devolve into very bad porn episodes in the second part, far too many to justify plot development, and far too explicit to even seem erotic. My biggest pet peeve is when directors let their private fetishes interfere with the truth of their movie, and this to me was a supreme example.<br /><br />I felt a bit like I'd been invited to a party of very clever, funny strangers, only to have the doors locked and the guests not allowed to interact, and all of us forced to watch bad seventies sexploitation films instead. What an insult to the hard work of these amazing actors! Why not just make a cheeseball flick to begin with? And why cast a great lead character who can actually act, and then cut away from him whenever he is building up to a great performance? I almost felt as if he too was growing tired of the endless sex scenes where all he did was lie there pumping his pelvis for yet another breathy naked actress.<br /><br />Bottom line - Part One is minor genius, Part Two is second tier soap opera perversion. I know the book is quite explicit, but I felt that these fine actors were as exploited in real life as their characters were in the movie, and it made me quite angry and very uncomfortable. Only John Waters can pull off such a dubious degrading of actors and plot and have it seem artistic. My suggestion is to only watch the first part, toss the second in the proverbial rubbish heap, and you will love the Buddha forever. Score A+F=0

What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid, but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The "You don't need to see my identification" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad!

I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.<br /><br />So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.<br /><br />Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.<br /><br />I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.<br /><br />Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than "run!" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.<br /><br />Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.<br /><br />So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.<br /><br />My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=cave

The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.<br /><br />Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.<br /><br />Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.<br /><br />7/10

I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.

Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.<br /><br />Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.<br /><br />Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.<br /><br />Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.<br /><br />

Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.<br /><br />As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.<br /><br />Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10

First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done. <br /><br />Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together. <br /><br />The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this. <br /><br />i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment

I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...<br /><br />I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.<br /><br />The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.<br /><br />The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.<br /><br />After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.<br /><br />EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.

This is a really silly job of miscasting--about as bad as Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in DRAGON SEED. The lead part Hepburn plays is a combination of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies and a faith healer! This film is even worse than Bogart's Swing Your Lady, because at least Bogart didn't play a hillbilly--he was just surrounded by them. And the dialog sounds as if it comes right from a Li'l Abner strip! The problems don't really end with the outrageous casting, though, as the plot is completely muddled and the "love story" might make your head hurt. For no reason WHATSOEVER, married Robert Young falls for this Ozark bobcat. Was it her lovely personality that won his heart? I doubt it, as she as the fiery "spitfire" the movie was named after and she really seemed to like fightin' and scrappin' and hollerin'! Was it her feminine charms? With no makeup and fashions that looked like they were designed by Ma Kettle, I doubt if this was the case as well. To top this off, in the end, somehow Ralph Bellamy also fell for her, though once again, it really doesn't seem to make ANY sense.<br /><br />So, here we have two city fellers fallin' for a scrappy unfeminine she-beast played by Ms. Hepburn--now THAT'S a recipe for a good film!

Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good.

This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.<br /><br />In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".<br /><br />I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.<br /><br />Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!

Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder. <br /><br />There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.<br /><br />There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there. <br /><br />The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure. <br /><br />Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.

This is a totally delightful and unexpected film. You start by following a young person who hopes to get into the qualifying football game between Bahrain and Iran. If Iran win they will get into the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The problem is the young person is a girl and girls (or women for that matter) are not allowed into football matches to "sit with men". What follows is a wonderful comedy, played with consummate skill by a small ensemble cast. The film explores the absurdity of restrictions on the freedom of women (and for that matter the young soldiers who have to corral them). There are some excellent set pieces, not least when one of the girls must go to the toilet and, of course, the stadium has no toilets for women. The camera work is of the simplest and in some ways this story could have been told as a stage play. Yet it is the small scale that gives the film its bite. Great cinema? No, probably not; great entertainment - for sure.

NO WAY ! I hated Granny. First, she is way too tall -of course she is, it is Tom, whoever's brother, who's playing her- and I hate that thing she does when she brushes her fake silver hair back, but : there are funny parts in this movie. For instance, the fact that every single actor looks V.G. (very German), and also that they think that, even when left alone, they should pretend that that guy (Tom) is their actual "granny" or something. I specially liked -not- that moment where Charlotte leaves and starts walking to the nearest gas station to ask for some help. She suddenly finds herself in the middle of some woods (where were these before? nobody dares explaining) and turns, turns, turns a-r-oun-d like a ballerina, looking at the stars...and...ignoring the fact that GRANNY'S BEHIND HER, READY TO STRIKE !!! But, anyway, the music wasn't so bad, the haircuts were okay and the ending terribly provocative... Mmmmm... wish I had the German version.

Lady and the Tramp II is very colourfully animated, and the songs, especially that of the Junkyard Dogs, are quite good. However, the family seems even too idyllic, and I can't help understanding that Scamp is discontented when everything is forbidden. However, I also pity Angel who never has had a loving family until she meets Jim dear and Darling.<br /><br />In any case, it's clear that the original Lady and the Tramp is better than this sequel.

He really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...

When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of "The Fugitive" and "The Incredible Hulk" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).<br /><br />They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.<br /><br />The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name

This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.<br /><br />There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.

I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)

Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, "The King of Comedy". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as "Dallas Doll" (1994) or "Dinner Rush" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.<br /><br />"Without You I'm Nothing" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", for instance, would look a lot different if "Without You I'm Nothing" didn't exist.

It seems that Hack has been described as un-realistic... but that's what TV is. TV is meant to provide an escape from everyday life and I feel Hack does a great job in that regard. Add to this the slow process of revealing his past and engaging/interesting plots; you just can't seem to get enough. Plus, with such great actors as David Morse, Andre Braugher, and even little Mathew Borish, what more can you ask for. So if you are looking for an involving experience and have a liking for "underdog" characters, I suggest giving Hack a chance, especially now that it's finally getting off its feet.

I thought that this is a wonderfully written movie. I love little Scamp, and the street-wise Angel. This movie is very easy for little kids to understand, but a good movie for adults as well. I liked this movie because it continues the original Lady and the Tramp, and that movie is a classic. Lady and the Tramp 2 Scamp's Adventure was filled with new characters, catchy songs, brilliant animation, and unforgettable classic characters. I have loved the movie ever since I saw it for the first time. I also loved how they showed the different personalities of each character. It also shows the downfalls and good things of making new friends that you can hang out with. My favorite song in the movie was Always there because it showed the different characters sharing their views on how they feel. I definitely recommend this movie for everyone that was a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp.

Madonna has been rocking the boat for over 20 years, and with that comes a lot of experience -obviously- and a lot of knowledge. She was never the one to think about yesterday, au contraire, she seemed to know what is going to be popular tomorrow. She bravely takes all the new trends, technologies, and incorporates them into her own acts. Her world tours have never been 'average'. When Madonna performs, she gives 120% - everything is bigger, better, theatrical and meaningful. She takes inspirations from East, West, and makes then unique. Everything is given a deeper meaning, and The Confessions Tour is not different. From the very beginning, you find yourself sitting on the edge of the chair. She starts with bang, then she does brave circus poses on a horse high up in the sky, she does everything she can to entertain you. She remakes her own songs, giving them a modern feel. She sings on a disco cross, she almost comes in the middle of the stage, and with her amazing dance crew that know no dimensions of fear, the show is absolutely more than you bargained for. It's a spectacle, an audio-visual orgasm that cannot be put in words. Lucky are the ones who actually experienced seeing Madonna on stage. Pushing fifty, she is still in an incredible form. Recent Sticky and Sweet Tour is even more ground-breaking, which proves nothing else, that Madonna was, is, and ever be the one and the only queen of pop.

You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.<br /><br />There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. <br /><br />That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab

Well, it's yet again a film that plays with your sentiments and you come out all soft as opposed to a rocky film. But I'm a sucker for those so I gave it a good score... the acting was very good and there were a lot of feeling. The violence is kept to a minimal which makes a change. I'd have given it a 9 if it were not for the salute at the end! All in all a good movie with very good actors.<br /><br />

I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven "Crime Doctor" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.<br /><br />I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films.

Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...<br /><br />Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic.

In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.

Marlene Dietrich is magnificent as Concha Perez, the temptress who drives all men to despair in Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil is a Woman". Her performance has nothing to do with 'acting' in any conventional sense but she's incandescent, a true star in full command of her material. But she's the only good thing about the film, (she's so good she keeps you watching this dross; I doubt if any other actress could have done the same).<br /><br />The story is an appallingly lame melodrama, (surely Pierre Louys' novel was better), in which Dietrich's amoral Concha ruins the lives of two friends played by Lionel Atwill and Cesar Romero with a stiffness bordering on petrification. And for Von Sternberg it's an ugly looking movie, (maybe in keeping with its fairly ugly subject matter). Bunuel, on the other hand, thought enough of it to remake it as "That Obscure Object of Desire" with a greater emphasis on the surrealist aspects of it all, down to casting two different actresses in the same role. Neither film is either director's finest hour and while the Bunuel version may be the better film, it is Dietrich's 'performance' you remember.

We now travel to a parallel universe where the appearance of giant prehistoric monsters flattening cities are part of the daily routine. It's the world of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra Ghidrah and their kind - a strange world, and one made even stranger by the appearance of an unidentified flying turtle called Gamera.<br /><br />Forever in the shadow of the monolithic Toho Studios, second rung Daiei Studios were more famous for samurai sagas than monster movies. In the mid 60s they decided to join the giant reptile race and designed a rival monster series to Toho's mammothly successful Godzilla. They wisely chose Gamera as their flagship - a giant turtle that shoots flames from between its snaggle-teeth, and spins through the air by shooting flames through its shell's feet-holes (and at one point you almost see the paper mache shell catch fire!).<br /><br />The first Gamera film "Gamera The Invincible" (as it was sold to the US) is a virtual mirror of the first Godzilla film, only 10 years behind. American fighters chase an unmarked plane over the Arctic to its fiery demise - the nuclear bomb on board ignites and awakens the giant Gamera from its icy slumber. Feeding off atomic energy, it immediately goes on a rampage, and the world wants to destroy Gamera once and for all, but a little Japanese boy named Kenny, who has a psychic connection with the giant turtle and even keeps a miniature version in an aquarium by his bedside, believes Gamera is essentially kind and benevolent. He's like a little Jewish kid with a pinup of Hitler. "Gamera is a GOOD turtle," he pleads, then sulks, and puts on a face like someone's pooped in his coco pops. Miraculously the world's leaders listen to him, and so begins Z-Plan to save the world AND Gamera from complete destruction.<br /><br />Released in 1965, Gamera was a surprising hit. The annoying infantile anthropomorphism actually worked on kiddie audiences in both Japan and the US, and the sight of Gamera on two feet stomping miniatures of Tokyo and the North Pole is gloriously chintzy. Most surprising of all is the longevity of the series: eight original Gamera films, plus a slew of recent remakes. Not bad for a mutant reptile whose only friend is mewing eight year old milquetoast - and if I hear "Gamera is friends to ALL children" one more time I'M going to crush Tokyo. Which appears to be an easy task in the parallel universe where children are smart and turtles are bigger than a Seiko billboard in the 1965 turtle-fest Gamera.

Small college town coed OD's? (Why do we care?) Acting sheriff investigates the incident. (Why do we care?) The interviews show us the comatose subject (Kirshner) as different as the opinions of the subjects being interviewed. (Why do we care?) Result? A mess of flashbacks in this mess of a movie featuring a handful of one-hit wonders and B-flick divas which begs the question...Why do we care?

Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.<br /><br />The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.<br /><br />The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.<br /><br />Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.<br /><br />For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.<br /><br />I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.<br /><br />The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.<br /><br />The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.<br /><br />I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.

Quick and simple, I love this movie.<br /><br />As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love "Goodfellas.") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?<br /><br />It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to "Pulp Fiction", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!<br /><br />Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!!

Off the blocks let me just say that I am a huge zombie fan so I don't make statements like the above lightly. Secondly let me say that this is an Italian zombie film and Fulci only directed 15 minutes of it before handing over to Bruno (Rats, Night Of Terror) Mattei. This is no Dawn of the Dead folks.<br /><br />That said this is easily one of the most entertaining zombie films I have ever seen. <br /><br />The script is wonderfully horrible. Just check out the two scientists trying to find an antidote ("Let's try putting these two molecules together"). <br /><br />The zombies come in all varieties. From moaning shufflers, to machete wielding maniacs, to birds! <br /><br />The gore is plentiful. Legs are bitten off, arms amputated, stomachs burst open. <br /><br />The pace is fast, flying from one zombie attack to the next. <br /><br />Then there's the head in the fridge. Oh the head in the fridge! One of the greatest moments in horror since Ash got his hand possessed in Evil Dead 2.<br /><br />You should know already whether you're the sort of person who's going to like this sort of film. Get some mates and some beer and you'll be in for a fun night.<br /><br />Did I mention the head in the fridge?!?!?

I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.

I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4)

This film was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too.

I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film. <br /><br />The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story. <br /><br />The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons.

It's hard to tell who this film is aimed at; the characterisation and style smacks of a "Children's ITV" series crossed with an Aussie soap, yet the subject matter, nudity, and language aims it at an older audience.<br /><br />The first half-hour has the heroine Justine philosophising about losing her virginity, and is excruciatingly embarrassing to anyone over 18. A complete rip-off of "Ferris Bueller", from the talking-at-the-camera bit down to the on-screen graphics.<br /><br />Her nerdy friend Chas brings her to a computer fair where an explosion during the use of a virtual reality machines turns her into a man. Or actually, creates a male alter-ego of her, called Jake. Don't look at me like that; I'm just relating it the way it was shown.<br /><br />After this the film is mildly amusing for a while; amongst all the drama-school mugging, only Rupert Penry-Jones brings a real comic touch to his woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body role of Jake. There's some funny scenes with Jake dealing with his new body, and new feelings; nothing you haven't seen before, but then in this film you'll clutch at anything that's entertaining.<br /><br />Unfortunately Justine and Jake meet up, and hilarious antics ensue (I wish), involving the owners of the virtuality machine who want to kidnap Jake in order to have sex with him, or examine him, or something. Anyway, it's just an excuse to fill an extra half hour with some explosions and car chases; for such a cheap looking movie, the explosions come often and loud, suggesting the money was spent in all the wrong places.<br /><br />In the end, the heroine realises she can't fall in love with herself, deletes her alter ego, and ends up in a one-night stand with the nerd to lose her virginity (this presumably is what is meant to pass for a happy ending in the 90s). But only after he removes his glasses and puts some hair gel and a leather jacket on; god forbid she actually have sex with someone who _looks_ like a nerd. Of course, this is a bit subversive - in these days of PC movies which tell you to love and be yourself, and that everyone is special in their own way, it's refreshingly reactionary to have a film which screams "CONFORM!" at you, and treats virgins and nerds with the contempt they deserve.<br /><br />The characterisation is simple dire; the nerd is very nerdy (room full of computers, thick glasses, social retardism, virginity, no leather jacket), there's a slut, she's very slutty (blonde, tight dresses, orange tan, vampy accompanying music), there's a jock, he's very... well, you get the picture. You can get away with this kind of characterisation in a broad comedy, but "Virtual Sexuality" isn't very funny. It's only mildly amusing in parts, and excruciating in others. It takes a lot for a woman as cute as Justine (played by Laura Fraser) to annoy me, but she manages it.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the title; there's absolutely nothing erotic about the film, and it doesn't deal with the topics of how the new communications technologies are changing the way we view and acquire relationships (unless you actually think there _is_ a chance your PlayStation might blow up and change your sex).<br /><br />

I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.<br /><br />But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.

As I sit back after watching Wong Kar-wai's 1994 movie Ashes of Time – more specifically the 2008 re-edit and re-release with the word 'Redux' slapped on the end of the title – I wonder what went wrong. I wonder why the film just didn't work out at all. I wonder why the movie failed to score any major points in my book. In particular, what was it about the film which dragged it down, and made it the director's worst film of his career?<br /><br />Well it's not too hard to figure out really. Let me just say that it truly is a shame that Kar-wai so abruptly went down this hell-hole of mediocrity and poorness in moviedom, especially considering the fact that in the same year he released Chungking Express, one of his enduring legacies and an absolutely sublime film. So – what went wrong? It would be suitable to consider Ashes of Time as somewhat of an experimental film. Our director essentially places his own inimitable style of film-making and places it in an entirely different setting, mood and atmosphere; what results is a catastrophic film which is all over the place and simply does not work out. Hence, it would be even wiser to call Ashes of Time a failed experiment. Bold, audacious and innovative, but a failure nonetheless.<br /><br />Let me elaborate. Those who have seen the films of Mr. Kar-wai, a Hong Kong-born film auteur who's made his mark on the art-house world since his debut in the late-80's, will know that there is an overriding aesthetic which binds all of his movies together; essentially and frankly speaking, they're all colourful, thought-provoking, amiable, subtly humorous and meaningful evocations of life, love and loss. The same formula is transposed into Ashes of Time; however, the regular setting of Hong Kong is ridden of, and in its stead we're placed into the setting of ancient China, and the land of the legendary martial arts warriors and clansmen.<br /><br />Intertwined into this quasi-adventure/historical caper is the typical Kar-wai love story, this time involving an elegiac hit-man who has moved to the middle of the desert, and is carrying out contract killings. However, I must stop myself there; description of characters is a useless thing to do. Why? Because not a single character in Ashes of Time is worth mentioning or nothing. What a bland cast, and what a waste of talent (the case of Ashes of Time contains nearly all regular Kar-wai collaborators).<br /><br />Not only that, but the film is essentially endless incessant rambling in a horrendous, almost non-existent narrative structure. One of the main reasons why detractors of Ashes of Time berate it is because it seems to possess no plot whatsoever, let alone a semblance or an indication of one. You can definitely see what they're getting at, even from the first two, three minutes, maybe less, of the film. Perhaps it's just the atypical setting of ancient China which is unaccustomed and inappropriate for Kar-wai's typical film-making style. I like to think, however unfortunate it may be, that Mr. Kar-wai just stuffed up big time here.<br /><br />One thing that a reviewer can actually compliment in Ashes of Time, albeit said compliment being starkly isolated, is another director trademark – wonderful, colourful and blissful aesthetics. What joyous colour is composed on-screen, what glorious textures are painted for us, and what breathtaking landscapes and imagery are captured for us throughout the entire movie. We can at least take this as a sign that Wong Kar-wai is still there at heart, and it's just the film which is so atypical, and buries his usually commendable nuance. Although the visuals aren't enough for us to fully absolve Kar-wai for this disastrous venture, they're enough to make the film worthwhile – and at least we don't walk out of the movie in a completely and totally cantankerous mood, now that there's something we can think of nicely.<br /><br />The film is essentially a 'wuxia art' film, following in the style of, say, legendary Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa. However, one thing differentiates Kar-wai's film from Kurosawa's best, and that's that in the Japanese director's films everything gels together and simply works. In Ashes of Time, nothing seems to work. Kar-wai's attempt to make a genuinely profound wuxia film, let alone an intellectual and provocative movie in general terms, is a futile endeavour.<br /><br />Kar-wai claims that making Ashes of Time exhausted him, and that he needed time to clear his head. It must've certainly been a fatiguing effort on his behalf, as his exertions are embodied in the film and transferred to us directly – I mean, just watching the film is an exhausting effort, and now I need time to clear my head of this unpleasant movie-going experience.

You've seen the same tired, worn out clichéd sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times before…only this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels "Arrested Development" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.

A poorly-paced sf/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.

All the criticisms of this movie are quite valid! It is pretty boring, and filled with all kinds of pointless ridiculous stuff. A couple exchanging nods over their "good grub." A medium shot of a desk as a phone rings until someone finally comes, sits down, and answers it at a pretty leisurely pace. Quadruple-takes or more when people look at things. Solitary banjo-tuning and playing, taking a break for a beer. Telling a joke to a fawn, about a big-mouthed frog trying to learn what to feed its babies, complete with many big-mouthed expressions (which are needed for the weak punchline). The sharing of cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread, which to the squeamish become unpalatable when there's talk of people burned in a fire. Lots of seemingly stock-footage close-up shots of animals, birds, insects, and spiders in the woods.<br /><br />The movie starts with a forest fire, then at least a couple decades later some people in those same woods get killed by an axe. The killer evidently wasn't too satisfied by the axe he stole, and kills other people with other weapons of opportunity or his bare hands.<br /><br />If it's true that the movie in the version available on the out-of-print videotape is cut, perhaps if there's a lot of footage that was cut, it deserves another look on DVD. Otherwise, it's simply not very interesting, and would probably try the patience of even the most hardcore outdoors-slasher fan.

I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name "Gecko," bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when "erect" and belongs to a guy who goes by "Sex Machine." If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.

I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy

Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.<br /><br />As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.<br /><br />Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video